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Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”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

51–60 of 175 posts

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#51

Post by smt88 »

ucaetano wrote: post #36
markdown wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may or may not be a problem, but it's still a monopoly. One way it could be a problem is that it makes it extremely difficult for new entrants to appear. If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?

> If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops? Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers. Cola is just a flavor of soda, which is just a type of drink, and can be easily interchangeable with an enormous number of drinks: water, juices, teas, etc. As…

> As long as Coke's actions are not stopping competition in that larger market with the result of harming consumers, why should anyone care?

This makes sense as a theory, but in practice, monopolies never exist without abuse/harm. It's likely the only way to sell a single brand to wildly varying customers with different tastes.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#52

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

markdown wrote: post #34
KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #31

Anyone think overaggressive monopoly laws can sometimes harm innovation? For example when Intel was way ahead of AMD by natural instinct it should've wanted to push ahead and "finish off" the company. But perhaps because it feared being labeled a monopoly it took the foot off the pedal and expanded elsewhere instead, harming x86 innovation. However, that's not to say monopolies are ok. I think regulators should do mo…

I don't think you've thought that through. How would Intel destroying AMD be good for innovation? Once AMD was gone, they'd have no more incentive to innovate at all .

AMD being destroyed would be bad for innovation in the long term but in the medium term it could create a pattern where Intel only stays barely ahead because going *too far ahead is actually detrimental. Regulations should perhaps be changed so that monopolies are incentivized to innovate and create good value instead of holding back. For a good while there browsers (IE6) were complete crap because MS feared regulations. You can think of the same thing happening to all MS windows software, from paint to windows movie maker. If MS were allowed to make good software for low cost the benefits to society could be pretty large.

However, because MS was close to a monopoly everything they do was suspect. On the other hand modern day apple seems to profit immensely from being NOT a monopoly. By not having a monopoly in a single area they're allowed to vertically expand as much as they want. Imagine if apple weren't allowed to offer siri, or icloud, or facetime, or imessages? The vertical expansion turns out to be more profitable than horizontal domination while at the same time being as abusive as MS ever was.

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

#53

Post by cryptonerd2212 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #46
amelius wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 provid…

I don't know that using railroads as a model of non-monopolistic business is the best idea, but I agree with you that investors are critical to business. It's the original crowdfunding.

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

#54

Post by nabla9 »

ucaetano wrote: post #49
nabla9 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Antitrust law is based on it.

You can read here how it is defined and identified in practice.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

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

#55

Post by j45 »

In a way the new monopoly is owning the demand but not the fulfillment..

Apple - own device demand, not the apps (or the default search).

Google - own search demand, not the content.

Facebook - own social demand, but not the content.

Airbnb - own lodging demand, but not the real estate.

Uber - own transportation demand, but not any vehicles.

Uber eats - own hunger, but not any food or restaurants

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

#56

Post by ChrisLomont »

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…

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

Is fairness forcing people to spend more money on less desirable products and firms simply because those firms exist?

That seems pretty unfair to me. And it's been shown to be bad economics time and time again.

Fair seems letting people decide which business they want to purchase from, even if that means less desirable ones don't get paid.

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

#57

Post by Alex3917 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #21
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…

That’s not a particularly convincing argument - it’s like saying that Sony has a monopoly in the PlayStation market - possibly true, but not that useful!

> That’s not a particularly convincing argument - it’s like saying that Sony has a monopoly in the PlayStation market - possibly true, but not that useful!

Except for that anyone can spend 30 seconds looking up how Coca Cola abuses their monopoly position to prevent competition; Richard Branson is perpetual the case study.

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

#58

Post by ucaetano »

smt88 wrote: post #51
ucaetano wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops? Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers. Cola is just a flavor of soda, which is just a type of drink, and can be easily interchangeable with an enormous number of drinks: water, juices, teas, etc. As…

> As long as Coke's actions are not stopping competition in that larger market with the result of harming consumers, why should anyone care? This makes sense as a theory, but in practice, monopolies never exist without abuse/harm. It's likely the only way to sell a single brand to wildly varying customers with different tastes.

But that isn't a monopoly.

Imagine Coca-Cola creates a new flavor, with a taste so unique that nobody else is able to replicate it.

Is that a monopoly? Is Coca-Cola abusing its power?

No, and no.

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

#59

Post by ucaetano »

smt88 wrote: post #48
sonnyblarney wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

Every beverage company does the same (see Nestle).

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

nabla9 wrote: post #54
ucaetano wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Antitrust law is based on it. You can read here how it is defined and identified in practice. https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN