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Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”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

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#121

Post by melbourne_mat »

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It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent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…

If a company has a persistently high market share and has had for a long while, it has an effective monopoly whether or not it has ineffectual competitors.

However I believe the reason nothing changes despite these obvious market distortions is that super profits are self perpetuating: companies invest in politicians to keep the distortions in place. The technical definition of monopoly is just a smoke screen.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#122

Post by huffmsa »

The Marxist ideal won't come through violent revolution, but through corporations becoming so influential in daily life and robotics so much more efficient than humans that we no longer work.

For reference, please see Pixar's WALL-E.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#123

Post by smt88 »

dageshi wrote: post #112
smt88 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have pointed out, you just seem to be using a different definition than the rest of us are. A single, unreplicated product is never considered a monopoly. A monopoly implies that customers don't have an alternative.

Google has a single unique flavour of search engine, it's very popular, it's not the only one but it's the one people prefer... How is it any different?

Google abuses its power, similar to what a monopoly can/does do, without strictly being a monopoly.

That's part of what the original article is discussing.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#124

Post by barry-cotter »

slededit wrote: post #102
timoth3y wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is actually pretty common in hypercompetitive commodity markets. The largest player has a slight cost advantage due to economies of scale, so they have the best price and everyone buys from them. This is not true at all. Looking at actual competitive commodity markets for things like lumber, oil, copper, etc, we see a lot of players in the market. I can't think of a single commodity market where there is a mon…

Strange you ignored the greatest monopoly of all time, Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Despite getting split up in 1911, its successor Exxon is the largest non-government owned oil company in the world.

Wouldn’t have been broken up under modern American antitrust law. Prices declined consistently and quality rose as they crushed their competitors through superior expertise, quality control, research and development and economies of scale.

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

#125

Post by titzer »

throwawayinside wrote: post #105
joelx wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China and Russia have major disinformation campaigns running in the United States and around the world. These campaigns have been heavily documented by news organizations and American defense agencies. A major branch of Russia and China's attack is the ongoing negative PR campaign against tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Can these companies improve? Sure. But their infractions are incredibly minor co…

This is the most insane conspiracy nonsense I’ve read on HN. Facebook had lobbyists targeting every member of Congress. Apple works tirelessly to put their profits in tax shelters. Amazon has well-documented stories of pushing its warehouse workers past their limits. Google’s chairman spent years openly laughing at the idea of “privacy.” You think these companies need help from foreign actors to look bad? If this lin…

> This is the most insane conspiracy nonsense

I think this is an ungenerous reading of the parent. The fact there are disinformation campaigns running all the time is known beyond a shadow of a doubt. Are Russia and China _solely_ behind the bad press that tech is getting? Decidedly not. But do they also benefit, as in, Chinese and Russian tech companies benefit if American and European ones are damaged? Yes. IMO they are busy frying bigger fish, but I have little doubt that given the chance to tip the scale of public opinion this way or that, they'd prefer tech companies catch some flack.

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

#126

Post by ryanwaggoner »

I find people's short term memory and myopia in this area to be amusing. Not to say that oversight and regulation aren't sometimes needed (probably more often than we get them in the US), but still, we should take a step back every now and then.

I see a lot of people fretting that companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are becoming so powerful that they're crushing their competition and taking over entire industries, and they just can't be stopped unless the government steps in.

Most of the companies people are wringing their hands about today effectively didn't exist 20 years ago. Back then it was another set of companies that were unassailable monopolies who were going to take over the world and rule with an iron fist for 1000 years, ruthlessly crushing all their upstart competitors.

And in another 10-20 years, no one will be concerned about Google, Facebook, and Amazon, and they'll instead be screaming bloody murder for the government to break up the otherwise-unstoppable companies X, Y, and Z before they destroy all that is good in the world.

Yes, yes, I know..."this time it's different!"

So it goes.

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

#127

Post by TulliusCicero »

dools wrote: post #116
bepotts wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I don't want to get all political, but the people pushing for this definition change are (usually) economic leftists that are naturally worried about the size and power of corporations. It's their default state. There's nothing wrong with that, but be upfront with your motives and don't mask empirical concern with political ideology. These people would have broken up Walmart in the 90s and Sears in the 70s i…

What is an "economic leftist"?

Someone who is left-wing economically? Are you just asking what values qualify as economically left-wing?

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

#128

Post by paulryanrogers »

leereeves wrote: post #109
threatofrain wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about his freedom as a consumer to shop at competitors to Amazon, Google, etc. People probably don't feel the same way about AT&T. Consumers prefer Google and Amazon, and it would cost them little to switch. Most consumers have no choice but to accept AT&T or Comcast.

There are alternatives to AT&T or Comcast; you could dismiss concerns by saying consumers prefer their service over wireless or satellite Internet.

The price and quality of service are very different with satellite or wireless. Compared to cable the alternatives are slower, higher latency, less reliable, and more expensive.

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

#129

Post by sonnyblarney »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #79
sonnyblarney wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two arguments, one is about Search as a monopoly the other is about that power as it relates to other parts of the value chain. Google search is fundamentally better than DDG (for most purposes) because it has massive advantages that make it effectively unassailable. For example, I stopped using DDG because I rely on reverse image search. FYI DDG does not have its own crawler, it gets data from other source…

DDG is proof positive that the barriers to entry are extraordinarily low . It is incredibly easy to start a search engine. Now, to make one that is considered good relative to Google, that is hard, because if Google is known for one thing, it's known for executing in search. But if someone wanted to invest billions and billions of dollars, they could take a shot. Microsoft has been taking their shot for years, and so…

"It is incredibly easy to start a search engine"

Yes, but it's impossible to build a quality one, that will compete with Google.

"Microsoft has been taking their shot for years, and so far it isn't working, but that's not because of barriers to entry. It's because they do not execute as well as Google does."

MSFT is one of the greatest companies in the world, with tons of high tech workers, brand recognition and the like. If they can't make a dent in search, then again I hold this up as evidence of monopoly.

When there is only 1 primary player, despite everything else, then that alone is evidence of monopoly.

If VC's could spend 1 Billion and take a piece out of Google - they would in a heartbeat.

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

#130

Post by timoth3y »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #92
timoth3y wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is actually pretty common in hypercompetitive commodity markets. The largest player has a slight cost advantage due to economies of scale, so they have the best price and everyone buys from them. This is not true at all. Looking at actual competitive commodity markets for things like lumber, oil, copper, etc, we see a lot of players in the market. I can't think of a single commodity market where there is a mon…

> Looking at actual competitive commodity markets for things like lumber, oil, copper, etc, we see a lot of players in the market. Those are all things that come from the earth (so inherently have diffuse supply), sell into the global market (so the market is large and diverse, leaving space for upstarts to find a niche) and are of strategic interest to national governments many of which then act to ensure that an in…

> Examples of markets where this actually happens: Coca Cola (as discussed), Walmart (in local areas), YKK in zippers, AB inBev in Brazil, Luxottica in eyewear.

None of these is the result of the "slight price advantage" and increased efficiencies you claimed. Luxottica is expensive and uses their vertically integrated monopoly power to keep competitors like Oakley out. Warby Parker gained success so quickly largely because of this dysfunctional system. Coke, where it controls the market it does so by controlling distribution, menus, and retail space, not by offering cheaper products.

> It's also common for this to happen with open source software, e.g. Linux on embedded devices, OpenSSH as an ssh client/server,

These are not monopiles. They are more akin to standards. It's like saying the kilogram has a monopoly. It's kind of true if you play with the meaning of the word a bit, but in terms of markets, there is no monopoly power.

Post reply on HN