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

Where Warren’s Wrong

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 290 posts

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#71

Post by oflannabhra »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #40
dnautics wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Yet here we are, and windows is not at all the dominant consumer os, and is not the dominant general purpose os any longer. Are you sure about that?

iOS and Android have far more active devices that Windows 10. As pointed out in the article, Microsoft missed the mobile revolution, and computing has shifted to mobile devices.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#72

Post by quest88 »

comnetxr wrote: post #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 missi…

Which anti-competitive moves?

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#73

Post by oflannabhra »

sib wrote: post #50
mtmail wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[Amazon] has captured 43 percent of all internet retail sales in the United States, with half of all online shopping searches starting on Amazon. In 2016, it had over $63 billion in revenue from online sales in the United States — or more than the next 10 top online retailers combined. It controls 74 percent of e-book sales, is the largest seller of clothes online and is set to soon become the biggest apparel retail…

Exactly, so, not a monopoly in ecommerce. And only a single-digit share of commerce . And, of course, there is literally nothing inherently illegal (in the US, at least) about building a monopoly in any case.

I'm not so sure we should be heralding the fact that a single company has not captured all of commerce as a win for competition.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#74

Post by scarface74 »

chj wrote: post #22

The author is nitpicking. Warren may be wrong about the history of bing and google, but that's not really important. She's 100% right about Amazon, and the author conveniently forgot to mention. Most people in tech industry always strive to build monopoly and dominance. In their eyes, Warren's idea is of course insane. But viewing from another point, in order to protect competition and small businesses, her proposal…

The purpose of government should not be to “protect small businesses” - ie protect business models that can not compete in the market

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#75

Post by Reedx »

almost_usual wrote: post #39
chj wrote: post #22

The author is nitpicking. Warren may be wrong about the history of bing and google, but that's not really important. She's 100% right about Amazon, and the author conveniently forgot to mention. Most people in tech industry always strive to build monopoly and dominance. In their eyes, Warren's idea is of course insane. But viewing from another point, in order to protect competition and small businesses, her proposal…

We’re going to see more and more defensive content come out and it’s only going to help Warren. Strategically she’s positioned herself well, she could easily be the most publicized democratic candidate because of this topic alone.

It's definitely timely and getting a lot of attention.

But Andrew Yang could end up making waves here. His approach seems more productive - proposing a VAT on big tech and a "Freedom Dividend".

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#76

Post by chumali »

Shivetya wrote: post #26
comnetxr wrote: post #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 missi…

Sorry, but the idea that Apple needs to be separated from the App store is ludicrous. If you don't like the App store don't buy Apple products. There are hundreds of other phones to choose from and some get equal or better reviews. It would be one thing if Apple was the only cell phone maker in existence but that is so far from the truth. Amazon and online purchases, again, there are so many choices that you never ev…

> If you don't like the App store don't buy Apple products.

The main issue with the App store (in terms of antitrust) isn't one of consumer choice but rather of taking advantage of network effects to enable rent seeking behaviour. App developers face little real choice, this inhibits the development of new app markets which would otherwise create value for consumers/developers beyond the value lost by Apple shareholders. It's economics 101.

> She is doing what politicians do best, using resentment, jealousy, and more, to gain more power and money.

If these were her goals she would surely fair better with a carrot rather than a stick (tax breaks perhaps). Her current proposals would drive business owners to support her political opponents - hardly a recipe for power and money. The proposals may be somewhat symptomatic, but it is a far stretch to conclude the agenda which you outline.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the purpose of antitrust regulation. It is not simply a matter of consumer choice or outcomes (a widely perpetrated view) - there are considerations of prices, coercion, competitive barriers and other outcomes, not only for consumers but for competitors, suppliers, workers, investors, citizens, etc.

Even when there is no evidence of a company actively exerting market power regulators still need to consider the potential that they might do so in future.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#77

Post by yeldarb »

abalone wrote: post #49

I’m worried about breaking up Apple. Control of the App Store is how they keep the iPhone secure and malware free. They make money on things sold through the store, yes, but they make most of their money in the phone itself. Break that up and now whoever runs the store has a lot more pressure to make money by exploiting your data, cutting back on curation, etc.

I don't think that's what's being proposed.

It's that if they are going to control the App Store they can't also participate with their own apps.

For instance, Apple Music, which has gotten over 50 million paying users not by being the best music app but by being pushed heavily by Apple as the platform owner.

In Warren's plan, Apple Music could not be controlled by Apple. It would have to compete in the App Store on its own merits.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#78

Post by scarface74 »

oflannabhra wrote: post #73
sib wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, so, not a monopoly in ecommerce. And only a single-digit share of commerce . And, of course, there is literally nothing inherently illegal (in the US, at least) about building a monopoly in any case.

I'm not so sure we should be heralding the fact that a single company has not captured all of commerce as a win for competition.

And it “captured it” because of the incompetence of the previous incumbents in retail - Barnes and Noble, Toys R Us, Tower Records, Walmart, etc.

Why should the government punish companies because they were able to disrupt incumbents?

Should we also punish Apple because RIM and Palm couldn’t compete?

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#79

Post by _ea1k »

fcarraldo wrote: post #47
replicatorblog wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like the weakest part of the argument — Walmart, Kroger, Walgreens, Costco, and every other major retailer has a similar program. All use sales data to determine what sells best and copy it. I did this for a decade, designing store brand medical devices for all the major retailers. There are plenty of legitimate critiques of Amazon. The "private label" one is by far the weakest.

Walmart, Kroger, Walgreens and Costco are not marketplaces, they're retailers, and they have contracts with suppliers and pay distributors to purchase goods to resell to consumers. Amazon is a marketplace where any retailer can list their goods for sale. I believe Warren's argument is that Amazon is abusing their position as the marketplace platform owner by listing their own goods at prices that undercut marketplace…

So your argument is that a marketplace is a place where it is easier for a third-party to get their goods sold than a retailer? And the distinction is how a supplier gets their product in is the differentiator?

And then the argument is that the marketplace (where it is easier to get listed) should be regulated more than the retailer (which often uses control over sales to push prices up)?

I'm not onboard with this.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#80

Post by nagVenkat »

Cyph0n wrote: post #61
apcragg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Your post is so misleading it borders on outright lying. Those $31k contributions come entirely from individuals. Comcast the company did not donate any money to her. Conflating individual contributions with Corporate contributions is massively misleading. Comcast has 164k employees. Do you honestly expect that most employees of Corporations agree with the political goals and objectives of their parent companies…

If the donor's employer has no impact whatsoever, then why is the employer listed at all?

It has a long history about how corporations will use employees to pay for candidates.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presid...

Post reply on HN