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

171–180 of 290 posts

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#171

Post by jmrobertson »

chillacy wrote: post #159
0xffff2 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To be fair, that's inaccurately reframing the argument. Apple with an Apple store for Apple Apps is the equivalent to what you're saying. Tesla doesn't sell Teslas _and_ BMWs.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#172

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

They were convicted of antitrust violations, sanctions were imposed, and they weren't dominant forever.

Since a key part of Warren's criticism of the past that has led us to the current state of internet giants is that it results from a complete failure to enforce antitrust laws along the way, there is implicitly a contrast with Microsoft where, even if it was fairly light touch in the US due to timely election of an MS-friendly administration, there was enforcement and sanctions.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#173

Post by everdev »

gamblor956 wrote: post #68
everdev wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

43% is a massive market share but a monopoly by the definition of the word has near 100% control of a market. I think the modern test is is it possible for someone to compete with Amazon? Costco and Wallmart certainly do. If you break up Amazon, I think online retail will just move to the next biggest player.

That is not, not has it ever been, the legal definition of monopoly.

The literal definition of the word implies a 100% share:

> A monopoly (from Greek μόνος mónos ["alone" or "single"] and πωλεῖν pōleîn ["to sell"]) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

The legal definition implies a tremendous advantage such that consumers would have no alternatives if the company raised prices:

> courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices [2]

2. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

I don't think Amazon can raise prices substantially without negatively affecting their market share. Costco, Walmart and Google Express are big enough players that they could handle an increase in volume if Amazon tries to raise prices beyond what the market is willing to bear.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#174

Post by basch »

bko wrote: post #156
basch wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it is usually used in the context of selling at a loss. so if amazon makes a ton of money on aws and then starts selling everything on amazon.com AT A LOSS, to purposely drive their competitors out of business, because nobody else can afford to sell at a loss for a substantial period of time. to prove it, you basically need written/recorded communication of them admitting they priced things that way to be anti competitive.

theres probably some argument to be made that uber/lyft and any of the venture capital products being sold with vc subsidization are kind of doing this.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#175

Post by jmrobertson »

vharuck wrote: post #166
jmrobertson wrote: post #24

Reading her stuff, it seems like proposals to separate Apple from the App store indicate a total lack of awareness about InfoSec, and at best a poorly researched policy proposal from a technical standpoint. The only reason the App Store isn't a simmering cesspool of malware is that Apple heavily moderates what gets on there, and Google does somewhat the same. That doesn't mean that there perhaps isn't a less MSFT + I…

So nobody but Apple and Google can handle security? The first days of free-for-all would be rough, but there'd eventually be a lineup of safe marketplaces. Hardware is a key part of security, too, but Intel doesn't have to run the marketplace.

Well, Intel and AMD have had the run of the marketplace (and ARM indirectly) since the beginning, but there's reasons for that both security and other so not exactly a good comparison.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#176

Post by reallydude »

y4mi wrote: post #104
throwawaymath wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the legal definition of a monopoly? As a followup, should that definition remain the legal definition of a monopoly? Do we need a modern appraisal of that definition?

A monopoly is when there is no competition. There can be seller and buyer monopolies. While having a huge market share is a given in such a situation, it's nonetheless not the definition

Competition is just a weasel word. Existence of multiple parties with overlapping interests is not competition. ie A participant in the market is ignored by the dominant player, who continues to dominate (regardless of any comparable metric), it's a functional monopoly. This is why companies often describe their product as "trust" more so than any specific feature set.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#177

Post by jmrobertson »

basch wrote: post #158
jmrobertson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I obviously have the view that the walled garden benefits consumers, so my bias shows. And, I think there's a lot of wiggle room on the cost to host in the App store.

However, US monopoly law is based on consumer harm, so...

I think on a mobile platform, with plenty of competition to not buy an iOS-based phone, a walled garden absolutely benefits consumers more than it hurts. There is so much PII on phones now. Given the total lack of InfoSec knowledge, especially at the mobile-user level, a walled garden is crucial: see every Google Store vuln that hasn't hit Apple.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#178

Post by tathougies »

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-...

> predatory pricing is undercutting a competitor to purposely drive them out of business.

That is the purpose of all competition in a free market -- to achieve as large a market share as possible. In a stable market, this necessarily involves removing business from your competitors.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#179

Post by root_axis »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #128
root_axis wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Google might be at a point where no company ever stands a chance to compete with it.

I'm not sure that this, in and of itself, is a problem. Someone has to be the best, and google's product will still be the best even if you break the company up. It's not as if people will start using bing if search were broken out into a separate company; if anything I'd guess that it might increase market-share as that new company would put all their efforts into making search better rather than on broader initiatives that cut across google as a whole.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#180

Post by scarface74 »

basch wrote: post #174
bko wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it is usually used in the context of selling at a loss. so if amazon makes a ton of money on aws and then starts selling everything on amazon.com AT A LOSS, to purposely drive their competitors out of business, because nobody else can afford to sell at a loss for a substantial period of time. to prove it, you basically need written/recorded communication of them admitting they priced things that way to be anti compet…

I assume that almost every company that YC funds is losing money and selling thier services at a loss. How could I compete by selling profitably?

The whole idea of most VC backed companies is to grow big and lose money until they get acquired.

Post reply on HN