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Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”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

151–160 of 175 posts

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#151

Post by ucaetano »

treis wrote: post #148
dageshi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 used it's search engine dominance to expand into analytics, advertising, e-mail, maps, mobile apps, browser, and probably more things I can't think of off the top of my head. Take maps for example. They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API. That's classic abusive monopolistic behavior. Or look at the browser. Adbloc…

> They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API.

You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and deploy maps from a 3rd party before them.

Hard to argue that things are worse now...

PS: Even then, there are a lot of other map APIs available in the market, and users have been switching. That is literally the antithesis of a monopoly...

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#152

Post by ucaetano »

dools wrote: post #115
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It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent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 monopoly is perfectly fine" <-- where do you pull that statement from?

From the Department of Justice:

For this reason, antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry. Where monopoly power is acquired or maintained through anticompetitive conduct, however, antitrust law properly objects.

A monopoly that doesn't abuse its market power to prevent competition is either a natural monopoly or a temporary situation.

Neither of those are anti-trust issues.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#153

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by treis »

ucaetano wrote: post #151
treis wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google used it's search engine dominance to expand into analytics, advertising, e-mail, maps, mobile apps, browser, and probably more things I can't think of off the top of my head. Take maps for example. They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API. That's classic abusive monopolistic behavior. Or look at the browser. Adbloc…

> They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API. You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and deploy maps from a 3rd party before them. Hard to argue that things are worse now... PS: Even then, there are a lot of other map APIs available in the market, and users have been switchin…

>You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and deploy maps from a 3rd party before them.

You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true.

>Hard to argue that things are worse now...

It's clearly worse. Instead of being able to choose from competing vendors you're effectively stuck with Google and your business depends on their whims.

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

#155

Post by ucaetano »

treis wrote: post #154
ucaetano wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API. You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and deploy maps from a 3rd party before them. Hard to argue that things are worse now... PS: Even then, there are a lot of other map APIs available in the market, and users have been switchin…

>You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and deploy maps from a 3rd party before them. You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true. >Hard to argue that things are worse now... It's clearly worse. Instead of being able to choose from competing vendors you're effectively stuck with Google and your bus…

> You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true.

No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices?

> Instead of being able to choose from competing vendors you're effectively stuck with Google and your business depends on their whims.

There are plenty of other vendors to choose from. Did you miss all the "we switched from Google Maps to XXX" posts on Hacker News?

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

#156

Post by ucaetano »

melbourne_mat wrote: post #121
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.

> 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.

No, it doesn't. Making up your own definition of monopoly (or the meaningless "effective monopoly") doesn't make it true, valid, or useful.

The Supreme Court has defined market power as "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market,"(8) and monopoly power as "the power to control prices or exclude competition."(9) The Supreme Court has held that "[m]onopoly power under § 2 requires, of course, something greater than market power under § 1."

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

#157

Post by beagle3 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #82
colllectorof wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reason why anti-trust is based on precise economic definitions is that it leaves as little room as possible for the government to favor friendly players. When you need to prove harm to consumers, the bar is high, as it should be. Yeah, I'm sure that allowing companies to merge right until the point where they make consumer's lives a living hell is great for the society and the economy. >The classic example is: C…

> Google, Facebook, and Amazon control not only what you can do as a consumer... ??? I'm not sure this is true? I don't feel like they are controlling me when I go to Target or Walmart??? But I'm not sure if there is something maybe with the advertising that is making me go to Target and Walmart? Either way, it's totally up to me as a consumer where I spend my money I would think.

More and more websites I need (including government and pseudo government websites, e.g. parking ticket payment that was outsourced) use Recaptcha. As a result, my government forces me to provide Google with free labour for basic functions, and additionally, it is possible for Google -- if they don't like me -- to declare me a robot and stop me from using those websites.

And .. what do you know? Google really doesn't like my tight uBlock Origin / Chameleon / Firefox Container / uMatrix / Privacy Badger setup, and every time I need to prove I'm not a robot (by providing free labour) I get longer and longer sequences.

Similarly, Facebook (through their WhatsApp acquisition) now decides who I get to talk to, because they have a monopoly on messaging where I live.

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

#158

Post by AndrewKemendo »

knlinux wrote: post #147
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you outlined the problem pretty well. Amazon, because they have information and economic advantage, can effectively manipulate the price of any good they want to make it uneconomical for any other company to play. That's a single company having outsized power to determine the state of the market. Using your example let's say that no other company can sell diapers online. That means for consumers that eith…

> Using your example let's say that no other company can sell diapers online. That means for consumers that either don't want to or can't buy from Amazon, they are materially hurt from the lack of competition. If a group of consumers can't or don't want to shop at Amazon, then they've just created a niche in the market (be it due to geography or anti-Amazon sentiment), that would create a demand for a diaper store th…

I already addressed your point, that they could just star their own:

Not only that, if they tried to start their own, they would be crushed just like the others.

As did you in the original reply. So we're going in circles on that point.

You're missing the broader point though. Even if a firm did everything, it would be bad for the economy because of lack of diversity. That's effectively what the Soviet Union did. It's not because it's the government that things don't work that way, it's because the government doesn't have competition that things fail when centrally managed.

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

#159

Post by ArchTypical »

otabdeveloper1 wrote: post #117
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…

Google's only product is online advertising, the only kind of advertising that matters in the 21st century. This is a big deal because they can abuse their advertising clout for evil purposes. (E.g., advertise Chrome but put out a prohibitive pricing scheme for Firefox.) But it's not a monopoly yet because Facebook and Amazon are competing actors in this space in the USA, and other nations have their own local actors…

> Google's only product is online advertising

That's not true. Not even from a particular viewpoint. You might want to rephrase that.

Google's primary revenue stream is from online advertising. They have a myriad of products, without which, the revenue stream would dry up. Youtube is a platform and a product and a brand. Google Search. GMail. Etc.

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

#160

Post by ArchTypical »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74
toast0 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument goes roughly as follows: Google is able to use its lead in search to exert undue influence on other markets. Google can (and has) ocassionaly placed banners suggesting a switch to chrome, influencing the browser market. Google showcases YouTube videos above other video results, regardless of the relative merits of the videos. Similar things in other verticals. Additionally, search dominance leads to domi…

> Google can (and has) ocassionaly placed banners suggesting a switch to chrome, influencing the browser market. But so can anybody else. Google sells ads on their search engine to anyone. If you asked nicely enough with a large enough pile of money they would presumably even sell you a banner placement. What is the objection supposed to be? That Google didn't pay itself for the ad space? How would it have changed an…

> But so can anybody else. Google sells ads on their search engine to anyone.

There's no guarantee (read the demand partner legal disclaimers, there's specifically NO guarantees) that there's an equitable distribution. There have been analyses to show that the algorithm has short-circuits to benefit Google products, featured here on HN and other places. I don't have them onhand, but it's openly discussed (meaning beyond being taboo):

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/google-staff-discussed-tweak...

Post reply on HN