Live data from Hacker News

Where Warren’s Wrong

stratechery.com

11–20 of 290 posts

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#11
post #6

" What is more striking is that, in retrospect, the core piece of the government’s case doesn’t make any sense: of course a browser should be bundled with an operating system; a new computer without a browser would be practically useless (for one, how do you install a browser?). Moreover, Apple, not without merit, argues that restricting rendering engines to the one that ships with the OS (all browsers on iOS have no…

"a new computer without a browser would be practically useless (for one, how do you install a browser?)"

When I read this, I realized that no computers can have browsers!

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#12
post #9

I wish the author and anyone writing about this would disclose their positions in these companies or that they have none. The merits of any argument on this topic are only worth considering if we know that they're being presented in good faith. And to be clear, this applies to people who are pro-dismantling and anti-dismantling.

https://stratechery.com/about/#ethics

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#13
post #10

I have to admit I'm a little taken aback by the focus on how the stated rationale is weak or doesn't fit every company equally while agreeing that there are real problems that would be addressed. Is there a word for this? Its almost nit-picking? Pedantry? Like dismissing someone who is fighting against anti-vaxxers because they didn't quote the most definitive study as rationale. Explanations of policy ideas aren't t…

I had the same impression. But this is how political discourse seems to work this day. Instead of making suggestions for improvement an idea gets dismissed completely and nothing happens as a result. Happened with Obamacare and also with the discussion about regulations. Instead of suggesting specific improvements it turns into a black and white debate without results.

This is why the entire second half of the article was detailing where I think focus should be.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#15
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same impression. But this is how political discourse seems to work this day. Instead of making suggestions for improvement an idea gets dismissed completely and nothing happens as a result. Happened with Obamacare and also with the discussion about regulations. Instead of suggesting specific improvements it turns into a black and white debate without results.

This is why the entire second half of the article was detailing where I think focus should be.

Maybe the title was already too confrontational. How about "How I would improve Warren's plan" or something like that?

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#16
Agree 95%, but one point he uses to crticize Warren seems wrong:

Where Warren says "America’s big tech companies have achieved their level of dominance in part based on two strategies: using Mergers to Limit Competition,..." he argues that they achieved dominance by making good products and were already dominant when they started making major mergers, and that Warren doesn't understand this.

It sounds like he's missing the whole point here: google, amazon, and apple of course did achieve dominance by making a good product, but then they leveraged that dominance over one product to dominance over the whole tech sector with a combination of more good products and anticompetitive moves. Warren does not argue that companies that make good products shouldn't be allowed to get big - just that they should be scrutinized and not allowed to make anticompetitive moves. Indeed, all of the tech companies she has proposed breaking up would still be huge companies with "dominating" products (including control over their respective platforms - search, app store, amazon store); but hopefully the ecosystem on those platforms can flourish without competition from the platform companies.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#17
It is interesting that this discussion is happening but we need to apply rational thinking in both ways (in favor and against).

For example, this paragraph:

> There is certainly an argument to be made that Google, not only in Shopping but also in verticals like local search, is choking off the websites on which Search relies by increasingly offering its own results. At the same time, there is absolutely nothing stopping customers from visiting those websites directly, or downloading their apps, bypassing Google completely. That consumers choose not to is not because Google is somehow restricting them — that is impossible! — but because they don’t want to. Is it really the purview of regulators to correct consumer choices willingly made?

The truth is that most consumers will not find alternatives because that involves much work and the platform putting the offerings just in front consumer eyes wins. Stratechery writes about this which is basically about UX, attention and search economy. Google, for example, is making users believe that they are showing the best results based on "an alhorithm" and not hardcoding parts if the results to benefit them. This is a kind of dark pattern that cannot be tolerated.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#18

I have to admit I'm a little taken aback by the focus on how the stated rationale is weak or doesn't fit every company equally while agreeing that there are real problems that would be addressed. Is there a word for this? Its almost nit-picking? Pedantry? Like dismissing someone who is fighting against anti-vaxxers because they didn't quote the most definitive study as rationale. Explanations of policy ideas aren't t…

I think Ben is arguing (or at least _has_ argued in past posts) that the way monopolies operate in the Internet age is completely different from how Standard Oil operated in the last century. Trying to bend the narrative around these companies to fit existing anti-trust legislation is not going to be sustainable, or will be easy for firms to slip, or will result in too few cases for prosecutors to be able to pursue.

Maybe, just as one idea, new anti-network effect legislation is the right way to attack monopolies of the present and the future.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#19

While I agree to some extend with the author, he too is making large leaps without truly backing them up. He's fighting over semantics. While Warren may be wrong in her history, she's not truly wrong in the results. Amazon does exactly what she says, Amazon sees a Marketplace item is selling really well, so they start to sell it too at or slightly cheaper. The reason people tend to use Google over Yelp as in his exam…

It wasn't Microsoft's meddling with the browser that was it's major anticompetitive sin; it was it's control over the bootloader.

https://birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/

Yet here we are, and windows is not at all the dominant consumer os, and is not the dominant general purpose os any longer.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#20
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the entire second half of the article was detailing where I think focus should be.

Maybe the title was already too confrontational. How about "How I would improve Warren's plan" or something like that?

yes that would have been better. didn't finish article, but headline would have kept me reading to the end because I would have expected critique to be followed with constructive suggestions
Post reply on HN