Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 175 posts

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#41

Post by sonnyblarney »

ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

a) They are monopolies by the classic definition.

b) "a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers."

This is kind of a non sequitur ... Of course they will prevent competition, that's the essential name of the game. Every company does this - this is not 'abuse' it's just how it works. Ergo, by your definition monopolies are all bad.

I actually think some monopolies are good - when you have well run actor that has some external controls on prices etc. it provides stability among other things.

c) To the extent that colas can be defined as a market, then they have a monopoly. 'Search' does exist aside an adjacent market in which content can be replaced, so it's not helpful.

Google needs to be broken up.

Search is so fundamentally essential ... it's like 'information neutrality'.

The FANGS are total hyprocrits pushing for 'Net Neutrality'.

Just as Comcast should not be able to offer anything but QoS and not read the content of my bites ... Google should not be able to offer anything but quality search. All their other products depend on their search monopoly. Much like Comcast would leverage looking at your packets. Much like Microsoft leverages their OS power to control office software etc..

Search, OS, maybe even Browsers - should be independent, just as Carriers can't use their power to get into other lines of business.

The AT&T merger is bad news, they shouldn't be in the content business.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#42

Post by djrobstep »

ucaetano wrote: post #38
nimish wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets only work if they are competitive. Governments do not need to obey market rules, and shouldn't if it helps society. It's odd that you would be fine with a corporate monopoly exerting dominant power over its market (to extract more profit) but are distrustful of government exerting power to limit that from happening. Monopoly definition is political -- the idea that governments cannot and should not step in to…

> It's odd that you would be fine with a corporate monopoly exerting dominant power over its market (to extract more profit) Where did you get that idea from? I'm not. > Monopoly definition is political Nope, it is economics.

This might blow your mind but: Economics is political.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#43

Post by sonnyblarney »

Nullabillity wrote: post #17
ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

> The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No. Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? > If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No. Err, yes. > Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, wi…

" Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition?"

In most places there just isn't any competition really. It's a brand war.

Coke taught the locals to love Coke. And so they do.

It's more of a mind share / branding monopoly - although there are some issues with distribution as well.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#44

Post by [deleted] »

djrobstep wrote: post #42
ucaetano wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's odd that you would be fine with a corporate monopoly exerting dominant power over its market (to extract more profit) Where did you get that idea from? I'm not. > Monopoly definition is political Nope, it is economics.

This might blow your mind but: Economics is political.

[deleted]

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#45

Post by nabla9 »

ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

In articles like this monopoly is used as shorthand for monopoly power.

For a company to have a 'monopoly power' it does not have full monopoly. Antitrust laws start to apply to corporations long before they have full monopoly.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#46

Post by AnimalMuppet »

amelius wrote: post #39
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody owed small bookstores a living. If Amazon can give people more choice at the same or better prices, why should the small bookstores survive? They're less efficient and therefore wasting resources. (Yes, I know, small bookstores provide a whole different experience than shopping on Amazon. The thing is, nobody cares . Or at least too few people care to make the small bookstores into viable businesses.) How did…

> Nobody owed small bookstores a living. By saying that you're basically throwing the whole concept of "fairness" out of the window, so that's no argument. In my view, Amazon does provide a more complete service than smaller bookstores, but they achieved this with external money; money obtained from outside the book-selling business. A similar thing is happening to restaurant owners. Companies like Uber Eats (started…

> > Nobody owed small bookstores a living.

> By saying that you're basically throwing the whole concept of "fairness" out of the window, so that's no argument.

Not at all. I'm saying that, if the small bookstores are less efficient at providing books to people, then there is room for a more efficient competitor to drive them out of business without any unfair competition taking place.

> In my view, Amazon does provide a more complete service than smaller bookstores, but they achieved this with external money; money obtained from outside the book-selling business.

So what if the money was from outside the book-selling business? You seem to be declaring all outside capital investment to be unfair, which strikes me as a bizarre stance. Were railroads unfair competition to wagons because the railroads had to raise capital on Wall Street?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#47

Post by ucaetano »

Nullabillity wrote: post #40
ucaetano wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly: you can absolutely always define a market here a company has a close-to-100% market share. That's why, to actually talk about a monopoly, you need to very precisely define the market. Take Facebook: Facebook has a monopoly in online, blue-themed social networks owned by Harvard dropouts. It doesn't have a monopoly on social networks, on communication, on online networks, on online ads, on online ads in socia…

But being blue isn't a defining feature of Facebook (or any other social market), so it's not useful for defining the market that it operates in.

> But being blue isn't a defining feature of Facebook

Indeed, nor is it a defining feature of the market. That is exactly my point: if your labe of "monopoly" relies on a non-defining feature of a market that sets it apart from other markets (meaning that there is little competition between borders), you definition of monopoly is useless.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#48

Post by smt88 »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #43
Nullabillity wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No. Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? > If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No. Err, yes. > Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, wi…

" Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition?" In most places there just isn't any competition really. It's a brand war. Coke taught the locals to love Coke. And so they do. It's more of a mind share / branding monopoly - although there are some issues with distribution as well.

It's not a brand war in a lot of places. Coke is notorious for getting favorable deals (e.g. water rights) from local governments that give them effective monopolies.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#49

Post by ucaetano »

nabla9 wrote: post #45
ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

In articles like this monopoly is used as shorthand for monopoly power. For a company to have a 'monopoly power' it does not have full monopoly. Antitrust laws start to apply to corporations long before they have full monopoly.

> monopoly is used as shorthand for monopoly power

No, it is used as shorthand for "market share in a market I define arbitrarily".

Proving monopoly power is a much more complex and academic process.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#50

Post by wpasc »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #41
ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

a) They are monopolies by the classic definition. b) "a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers." This is kind of a non sequitur ... Of course they will prevent competition, that's the essential name of the game. Every company does this - this is not 'abuse' it's just how it works. Ergo, by your definition monopolies are all bad. I actually t…

I frequently see people say "Google should be broken up" and I want to hear more on that argument. Meaning Google and Youtube should be separated? but then we're no longer talking about just their search dominance right? How could search alone be broken up if a large part of the complaint is about the dominance of their search?

Moreover, it is pretty easy to not use google search? Why couldn't someone use DDG, Yahoo, Bing, etc.? despite it being defaulted to in browsers (you can change this), most people elect to use Google. If a company dominates a single sector through consumer choice, should they be broken up (esoecially when consumer could walk away)?

I'm not try to be facetious, I would just like counter arguments

Post reply on HN