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

151–160 of 290 posts

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#151

Post by sf_rob »

chumali wrote: post #76
Shivetya wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sharehold…

>isn't one of consumer choice but rather of taking advantage of network effects to enable rent seeking behaviour.

If Apple could rely on network effect alone then they could have a hidden setting to enable 3rd party apps to run on the device like Android does. The retort to this is that you're increasing the attack surface of rogue apps but I don't buy that personally.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#152

Post by scarface74 »

cgriswald wrote: post #150
scarface74 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? Every company I named was once dominant. Even Spotify came out of nowhere and made the once dominance iTunes Music Store basically irrelevant without government intervention. It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today.

> So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? > It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today. The criticisms of Microsoft weren't that it was preventing Apple from selling computers; but that it was using it's monopoly in the operating system to prevent competition agains…

Spotify doesn’t pay an “Apple Tax”. You can’t subscribe to Spotify within the App store.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#153

Post by briandear »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #66
patrec wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are just two phone makers in existence: Google and Apple. If you care about privacy and security, there is just a single phone maker: Apple. The only difference between different brands of Google phones is how much additional insecurity and crap the notional manufacturer adds on top. Amazon has complete dominance over books in the US and are on their way to abolishing book ownership outright.

If apple is the only phone maker to offer privacy and security, why would we break them up? Amazon is abolishing book ownership because they invented a better way to read books (kindle and audible). How is breaking them up going to make people want to own books again? The only way that would happen is if you make kindle and audible worse. How would that help society?

People also seem to forget that the Apple Bookstore is still a thing. Certainly not as big as Amazon but certainly big enough to matter. Apple also has audiobooks as well. So there is competition.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#154

Post by azeotropic »

mschuster91 wrote: post #41
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.

> It doesn't have a monopoly in the retail space For vendors, the situation looks different - and Amazon certainly does abuse their position towards vendors often enough, e.g. with the AmazonBasics program where they take bestselling stuff, produce it at Amazon scales and then outprice the "competition".

This is a net benefit to consumers, not something they need to be protected from.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#155

Post by zaphar »

jtr1 wrote: post #112
martythemaniak wrote: post #95

There's a lot of common sentiment around politicians that goes something like "It doesn't matter if they got the details wrong, what matters is that they're essentially correct because they see the Big Picture" We see this here, with fans of Warren saying getting things wrong is irrelevant, because we all know FANG is too powerful and she says it. Thus, quibbling over details is nitpicky pedantry. This tactic is also…

This smacks a little too much of "both-sidesism." The substantive difference between the two is that Warren will hire a cabinet of seasoned policy specialists who have the bandwidth to write accurate distinctions into law, while there was never any corollary action for Trump because birtherism was never going to be translated into policy; it was a play to prejudice.

Yes she will undoubtedly hire seasoned specialists to write her policy into law for her. But will she be looking for people who are on board with her framework or will she be looking for people who will challenge her framework and change her mind on some things.

It's worth asking which of those it will be because that is what determines how effective her efforts will be. It's not certain in my mind which one she'll do and as written her proposal does fail to account for some of the causes of the current crop of large scale goliaths in tech.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#156

Post by bko »

basch wrote: post #122
scarface74 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Why else would anyone lower their prices below that of a competitor if not to get the upper hand?

So charging too much is wrong (exploiting your power) but charging too little is wrong (undercutting competitors). Whats the solution? Centrally planned prices have been tried failed.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#157

Post by pixl97 »

scarface74 wrote: post #132
cgriswald wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be arguing for a winner-take-all approach to the market. Should future competitors to [monopolistic entity] be punished because [previous competitors] were unable to effectively compete? In any case, I don't think punishment is really an apt metaphor for breaking apart a monopoly.

So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? Every company I named was once dominant. Even Spotify came out of nowhere and made the once dominance iTunes Music Store basically irrelevant without government intervention. It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today.

>So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out?

Microsoft is a goddamed convicted monopolist. The conviction significantly changed their internal processes and they were much more careful after that point.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#158

Post by basch »

jmrobertson wrote: post #106
phillmv wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people should not be permitted to go to netflix.com to install the netflix app, or to twitter.com etc etc

that gets into interesting Human-Comp Interaction discussions, but a good place to start is that the HCI dynamic of mobile/tablet platforms is totally different (deliberately) from that traditional approach to browsers. So I guess it could be done, but relying on that approach undermines a lot of what make mobile platforms 'mobile platforms.'

its not about workflow, its about not allowing sideloaded apps. the question is whether it is pro or anti consumer? does it hurt the consumer to pay 30% apple tax for netflix, or does the walled garden benefit the consumer by protecting them?

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#159

Post by chillacy »

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 Tesla shouldn’t be a car dealership. But going direct to consumer was the best thing for consumers imo. Why would I want to deal with economically inefficient middlemen? The new laws could create digital versions of car dealerships

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#160

Post by [deleted] »

cgriswald wrote: post #150
scarface74 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? Every company I named was once dominant. Even Spotify came out of nowhere and made the once dominance iTunes Music Store basically irrelevant without government intervention. It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today.

> So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? > It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today. The criticisms of Microsoft weren't that it was preventing Apple from selling computers; but that it was using it's monopoly in the operating system to prevent competition agains…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN