Where Warren’s Wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#191

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #172

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? 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 cont…

How did these “sanctions” help foster competition and create the players that are dominant today?

Microsoft is still just as dominant in the PC operating system market and the desktop productivity market as it was in 1999.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#192

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

jklinger410 wrote: post #109

almost_usual wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a sad state we're in that instead of talking about the most important monopolies, we're only able to talk about the ones with the most brand recognition.

[deleted]

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#193

Post by strange_quark » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

_ea1k wrote: post #79

fcarraldo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The argument is that retailers take on risk by agreeing to sell a product since they purchase the product upfront. A marketplace like Amazon is different because they can take on 0 risk while still collecting all the data about what's selling and then turn around and undercut the vendor with an Amazon Basics product risk free.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#194

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #190

scarface74 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean companies have to pay to be a part of a marketplace? Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And you act as if most revenue from online stores is not coming from in app purchases of consumable goods.

> Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. Because retail stores have to provide shelf space with real estate cost, unsold inventory cost, etc. How much is that cost to Apple? > It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And it costs 0% to be distributed in a Linux package manager. Possibly something…

You could download J2ME apps from anywhere. Honestly I used Verizon as an example but thinking back, Sprint’s store was a better example. I think Verizon used something different.

Because retail stores have to provide shelf space with real estate cost, unsold inventory cost, etc. How much is that cost to Apple?

So now the government should also decide what is a “fair” amount of markup?

And it costs 0% to be distributed in a Linux package manager.

And seeing how little money you can make from Linux users, the value add for distributing packages on Linux makes the price about right....

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#195

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #191

dragonwriter wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cont…

How did these “sanctions” help foster competition and create the players that are dominant today? Microsoft is still just as dominant in the PC operating system market and the desktop productivity market as it was in 1999.

> Microsoft is still just as dominant in the PC operating system market and the desktop productivity market as it was in 1999.

The sanctions were on the way they illegally leveraged that (legally attained) monopoly to monopolize other markets. Something which they've been decidedly less prone to do since. Well, at least for a while, they are now pretty much following the lead of the companies Warren is complaining about and, to the extent the latter are benefitting from lax enforcement, so are they.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#196

Post by basch » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

jmrobertson wrote: post #177

basch wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Theres a pretty good argument to be made that it nearly eliminates piracy, and is good for business too.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#197

Post by basch » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #180

basch wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

which is not the same as trying to purposely extinguish competition. its about INTENT, not just selling at a loss.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#198

Post by georgeecollins » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

In the article: "Worst, it would do so by running roughshod over the idea of judicial independence, invite endless lawsuits and bureaucratic meddling around subjective definitions, and effectively punish consumers for choosing the best option for them."

This seems like a FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) argument. How is breaking up a tech giant going to create more of these problems than breaking up AT&T did? We lived through that.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#199

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #187

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #181

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. Don't forget "if it's free then you're not the customer you're the product" -- which means it's the users who are engaged in predator pricing by not charging for access to their eyeballs. Of course, the users aren't giving their eyeballs for free, they're trading…

I’m well aware of that. I’ve been arguing against government regulation.

It is possible to respond to someone while agreeing with them.

But allow me to disagree with your conclusion. The problem isn't predatory pricing, but the network effects problem is still a problem.

Now, granted, the problem is as much created by the government as anything. The law (CFAA, DMCA) makes it so that people can't create a Facebook "client" without Facebook's permission.

If they could, suddenly you've got a bunch of clients that consolidate many social networks into one interface, which makes it easier for users to switch to others. If Facebook is doing something you don't like, you install another back end to your client and transparently use that service with any friends who also have it. The more people Facebook offends, the more users they lose, without any specific other service ever having to reach some critical mass before most people can stop using Facebook.

That could be brought about by removing laws rather than adding them (though you could also pass new legislation to the same effect), but in either case it does require a piece of legislation to be passed to bring it about.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#200

Post by jfengel » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

swinnipeg wrote: post #37

philipodonnell wrote: post #7

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 disagree. I think Ben's main point is that regulation needs to be a vector, while Warren is proposing a scalar. He agrees with her for raising this, and does think that some regulation should be in place, but sufficiently understanding the underlying nature of the problem is important to do less harm than good.

Except that that's perilously close to telling a patient that we don't completely understand the mechanism of action for this medication, so they're just going to have to die.

Government, like medicine, means making decisions based on insufficient information. More and better information should be preferred, but it's important to recall that doing nothing is also a decision. Its being a default decision does not make it exempt it from the possibility of doing more harm than good.

We want to make the best decision possible, but that needs to take into account that any multi-dimensional problem is easily diverted into taking no action even when there is widespread belief in favor of some action. "Belief" is one of the ways we cope with the absence of information: we just ask people and do what the majority wants. So it's very easy to take a complex problem and present multiple competing solutions, any of which would be preferred by a majority but no one of which will be the single best choice for more than half.

Sorry that that went into an abstraction, and you probably know all that. It just raises a red flag for me when somebody says "It's complicated" but means "Well, not doing anything just happens to suit me, so I can continue to declare that it's complicated indefinitely, because it is."