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

121–130 of 290 posts

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#121

Post by atq2119 »

root_axis wrote: post #102
cm2187 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually amazon is the one that I would say doesn't have a monopoly. It doesn't have a monopoly in the retail space (far from it), nor in the cloud hosting (let alone server hosting) business, nor in online streaming (music/tv). Google on the other hand has close to a monopoly on search (and browsers). Facebook on social medias.

The typical antitrust concerns around monopolies don't really apply to google (currently). Google hasn't used its position to create barriers to entry for competitors, it is only that google has a reputation for producing a superior product in this domain. I've also heard some argue that google has a monopoly on advertising eyeballs, but this is clearly false (i.e. there are lots of platforms that make a lot of money…

Could it be argued that Google is engaging price dumping by financing the development of its search engine from unrelated revenue? Namely, ads placed on websites other than its search result pages?

Just thinking out loud, really.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#122

Post by basch »

scarface74 wrote: post #115
basch wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone is stuck on the word monopoly. Antitrust law is much larger than just monopolys. and, if you can prove it, predatory pricing is illegal. amazon is absolutely subsidizing a bunch of stuff with profit from elsewhere. if and what and how the government can do something about that is a huge can of worms with wide reaching implications outside the tech industry. IF the government wants to get involved with separa…

So since most of the things we use everyday on the Internet is free, that means most products we use are run by companies that are using predator pricing. Does that mean that HN should also come under scrutiny because it can price HN free? What if I wanted to start a competitor to HN? Should the government make it so there is an environment that makes that easier?

predatory pricing is undercutting a competitor to purposely drive them out of business. i dont think hackernews is trying to put other sites out of business, far from it, as a link aggregator its business model is to push eyeball views elsewhere, similar to drudge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

http://signalvnoise.com/posts/1407-why-the-drudge-report-is-...

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#123

Post by 0xffff2 »

scarface74 wrote: post #89
yathaid wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not Apple's oversight of the app store that is the problem Warren is targeting, it is the participation. Apple can either take 30% from Spotify or have iTunes, not both. Similar argument for Amazon and Amazon Basics. The article does raise an interesting point though about not thinking of these companies as "tech"; the Amazon argument can be applied to any private label I guess, hence the point about unintended…

So is she going to break up the PlayStation, XBox, Nintendo, and Kindle Stores from their platforms? Is she going to stop physical retailers from having store brands that “compete unfairly”?

I think she's saying that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo shouldn't be game developers or publishers and that Amazon shouldn't be a book publisher.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#124

Post by whytaka »

scarface74 wrote: post #103

After reading through all of the comments, I don’t see how many of the same people who worry about the power of private companies are okay with giving the government more power - the only entity with the legal right to take your property, life, and liberty. I’m much more afraid of government power than private corporations.

The government always had this power. One member of congress is simply making an argument about exercising said power.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#125

Post by shadowtree »

Classic framing problem:

Immediately assume it is wrong, then work backwards proving it, using minute details.

Would be more interesting to assume we're doing it, then think through the consequences. Or, define the stated end goal (fairer marketplace) and then see if the break up helps.

Super irony: In the NGINX gets bought by F5 thread, people complain about AWS being killer competition, ruining the market for open source.

The emotions here are also nationalistic, as it hits US companies. Breaking up Ali or TenCent would get a different reaction.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#126

Post by scarface74 »

shadowtree wrote: post #110
scarface74 wrote: post #103

After reading through all of the comments, I don’t see how many of the same people who worry about the power of private companies are okay with giving the government more power - the only entity with the legal right to take your property, life, and liberty. I’m much more afraid of government power than private corporations.

Try not paying a mortgage and see what happens. Banks can take away a lot, starting with your credit score. And without government, you'd not even have any recourse.

If I don’t pay my mortgage - a contract that I freely entered into knowing the consequences - why shouldn’t the bank take away my house? If the credit score accurately reflected that I didn’t pay the mortgage, why shouldn’t that be recorded?

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#127

Post by scarface74 »

0xffff2 wrote: post #123
scarface74 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is she going to break up the PlayStation, XBox, Nintendo, and Kindle Stores from their platforms? Is she going to stop physical retailers from having store brands that “compete unfairly”?

I think she's saying that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo shouldn't be game developers or publishers and that Amazon shouldn't be a book publisher.

And it’s amazing that software developers are okay with the government telling companies how software should be sold and produced.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#128

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

root_axis wrote: post #102
cm2187 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually amazon is the one that I would say doesn't have a monopoly. It doesn't have a monopoly in the retail space (far from it), nor in the cloud hosting (let alone server hosting) business, nor in online streaming (music/tv). Google on the other hand has close to a monopoly on search (and browsers). Facebook on social medias.

The typical antitrust concerns around monopolies don't really apply to google (currently). Google hasn't used its position to create barriers to entry for competitors, it is only that google has a reputation for producing a superior product in this domain. I've also heard some argue that google has a monopoly on advertising eyeballs, but this is clearly false (i.e. there are lots of platforms that make a lot of money…

Google's monopoly on search is entirely because it is the best search product by far.

However, as search becomes increasingly important in our lives, and as past search data becomes more important to ranking algorithms, Google might be at a point where no company ever stands a chance to compete with it.

By using Google, you make it better. It's already the best, and it already captures 85%+ of searches. How is anyone ever going to compete?

Bing even offered to pay people money to use its search engine for a while, and still it got hardly any traction.

I don't think Facebook's and Google's monopolies are too concerning other than the impact they have on online advertising. Google basically made CPC ads 10x more expensive like 10 years ago, and ever since, that's been the price of a click.

Facebook having a monopoly on social advertising clearly had no interest in starting a price war with Google to win ad dollars. They compete in separate spaces. They can each charge a premium.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#129

Post by sonnyblarney »

jmrobertson wrote: post #29
chj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are quite some shady stuff going on in the App Store. People have to live with that, because there is no alternative. https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/sneaky-subscriptions-are-p...

Right, so imagine separating Apple/Google totally from its current oversight position, and having a totally open app store. Like the world _just_ got past learning not to click 'download here!' on a browser, and that was after 20 years of the internet. I'd be open to alternative proposals, but separating the App Store with no replacement is not a secure solution by any means and causes more problems than it solves, a…

You can make and distribute your own app on Android and totally bypass Google Play already.

Also - having a security policy is different than taking a 30% cut of all commercial activity on the platform.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#130

Post by apcragg »

Rooster61 wrote: post #46
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…

Your argument is equally misleading. Does the fact that those contributions come from individuals somehow make them less profound? It's exceedingly important to point out who these individuals are associated with employment-wise.

I mean, yeah it makes them less profound. Individual identity is not entirely defined by place of employment. I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support.
Post reply on HN