| |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure why not? The government is just exercising its power as a purchaser. | | |
| ▲ | apawloski 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Exercising its power as a purchaser is "not buying it" or "choosing a competitor." Instead, this is arbitrarily and capriciously using an administrative mechanism in a novel way to punish a company. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The "administrative mechanism" here is just a way of exercising purchasing control. A private company could do the same thing. | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > A private company could do the same thing. Probably not, no private company has the ability to tell all its suppliers "thou shalt not do business with <some other company>". They lack the pull to compel them to do so. The closest would be things like what MS did back in the 90s, and got them in hot water with the anti-trust case against them. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner an hour ago | parent [-] | | That's not what happened here. It was "you can't use <some other company> for stuff you do for us." | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers an hour ago | parent [-] | | Fair, and still not something most companies can pull off. Again, without risking running into anti-trust laws like MS did. Do you seriously think that you can go to all your vendors (if you were a business owner) and tell them, "You can't use Atlassian when working on anything you sell us." How will your business actually compel all those vendors to drop their use of Atlassian for that work? How will you verify compliance and why should any of them sign a contract with you with these restriction? And if they do, how will you avoid anti-trust violations because almost certainly the only way you could talk them into signing such a contract would be to be a massive company throwing your weight around (like MS did with hardware OEMs back in the 90s, among other things). |
|
| |
| ▲ | apawloski an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Private companies are not bound by the first amendment, the fifth amendment, the administrative procedure act, etc. |
|
| |
| ▲ | felixgallo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 'why not'? It's retaliatory beyond all proportionality, for one. | |
| ▲ | scottyah 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They are not "just a purchaser" though. It's the world's most powerful organization that is funded by the people and is supposed to be for the people. I'm all for businesses making FAFO decisions, but expect a lot more here. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The fact that it’s a publicly funded entity is more reason for it to adopt hardball tactics, not less. It’s similar to FDR’s comments on public sector unions. When the government is the buyer, it’s even more important to get the best deal and terms possible, because it’s the public’s money’s you’re spending and the public’s interest you’re serving. | | |
| ▲ | scottyah an hour ago | parent [-] | | Exactly, setting policy for Americans and American companies is extremely important and should not be ego driven. These deals are to improve America, not to look strong. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | VWWHFSfQ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The DoD and US military does not allow contractors to use iPhones or anything else that is not backed by government-hosted or compliant infrastructure, such as GovCloud. The fact that the Pentagon and Anthropic could not come to an agreement on the usage and deployment to GenAI.mil means that it can't be used. The reasons why are incidental to that requirement for defense contractors. | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The DoD and US military does not allow contractors to use iPhones What are you talking about? That's nowhere close to a true statement. | | |
| ▲ | VWWHFSfQ 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > that is not backed by government-hosted or compliant infrastructure, such as GovCloud | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Go into a random defense contractor office and (assuming you can get in to do this) ask them how many of their iPhones are managed by the company. The percentage who say theirs are will be close to 0%. Most are personal devices, and they use them to call into meetings with DOD officials all the time with no special precautions taken. | |
| ▲ | scottyah 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wym "backed by"? This makes no sense. I am a contractor, use an iphone, and never connect it to govcloud. | | |
|
|
|
|
