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

251–260 of 290 posts

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#251

Post by AnthonyMouse »

scarface74 wrote: post #245
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was nothing stopping Mozilla from making a “Firefox phone” and having a fully integrated experience. Well they did try and failed to execute. The whole issue is that you shouldn't have to succeed in the phone market before you can operate an app store . Tying the phone to a specific app store is the problem. "Integrated experience" is the argument Microsoft failed to convince with when it tied Internet Explor…

In other words, Apple has a monopoly over 20% of the app customers, in the same way that Charter may have a broadband monopoly in 20% of the country even if there are other providers in the other 80%. I can walk into any mobile store and have a choice between dozens of phones. Most people can’t choose their homes internet service provider. Notice that this isn't the same thing as saying that Walmart has a monopoly ov…

> I can walk into any mobile store and have a choice between dozens of phones. Most people can’t choose their homes internet service provider.

No, but they can choose their home, which is the relevant analog. If you don't like Charter, just move to another city. If you don't like the Apple App Store, just buy another phone.

If the thing you have to buy to get a choice costs 1000 times more than the thing you're choosing, it's not a real choice.

> People can choose whether they want to spend money on an iPhone or an Android phone knowing the trade offs just like people can choose whether to buy an Xbox or PS4.

"People can choose whether they want to spend money on a house in Charter's service area or Comcast's service area knowing the trade offs..."

And it being no different for consoles only means that the same rules should apply there as well.

> Seeing that there are competing products for everything that Apple sells

What is the competition for Safari then? Notice that "Firefox" on iOS isn't even real Firefox because Apple requires it to use Safari's engine internally.

Also, the App Store is an app.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#252

Post by hosh »

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 author has written a lot about Amazon, how it gained power, both in that article and in others on that blog. He did not conveniently forget to mention it.

The article may seem like nitpicking the history of Bing and Google at the beginning of his article. However, if one were to read through the whole thing, he is showing how Warren is coming from an inadequate frame to make an effective policy. The author analyzes this from the Aggregation Theory he has been working on for years throughout other articles on his blog.

The biggest takeaway is that, the FAANG aggregators get their market power because consumers voluntarily use their product. While promoting competition can help a market, the current US standard for antitrust is around consumer welfare, and modern-day aggregators do no meet that standard. The concern here is that developing antitrust policies without addressing these deeper concerns will not solve the problem (dominant companies that grow increasingly more dominant over time), and may end up exacerbating it.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#253

Post by hosh »

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.

Sure, though this article isn't defending the FAANG companies. The author is also concerned, though he is saying the problem is deeper, not well-understood, and Warren's solution as-proposed is simplistic and will not be effective.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#254

Post by [deleted] »

akkartik wrote: post #94
mcguire wrote: post #6

" What is more striking is that, in retrospect, the core piece of the government’s case doesn’t make any sense: of course a browser should be bundled with an operating system; a new computer without a browser would be practically useless (for one, how do you install a browser?). Moreover, Apple, not without merit, argues that restricting rendering engines to the one that ships with the OS (all browsers on iOS have no…

This caught my eye as well. "...a new computer without a browser would be practically useless (for one, how do you install a browser?)." He's confusing network access with a browser, which seems an atrocious mistake. You don't need a browser to support http:// links in the OS.

[deleted]

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#255

Post by WaltPurvis »

sdenton4 wrote: post #97
gimmeThaBeet wrote: post #35

> the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish. To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor. This is part I find interesting. If there is a difference between the titans of now vs old, its that they behave lik…

The arguments are about stifled competition, rather than direct consumer impact. There's less funding for early startups because it's hard to compete with the Giants, and the Giants walk where they want to. As a result, no one gets a chance to do better than the Giants are currently doing... Even if consumers are kinda ok with how things currently are. (Now, it's also pretty easy to imagine breakups going horribly ho…

>it's hard to compete with the Giants, and the Giants walk where they want to. As a result, no one gets a chance to do better than the Giants are currently doing...

I'm old enough to remember when Michael Dell said Apple could never compete with giants like Dell and should just dissolve itself and disburse whatever money it had left to shareholders, and almost every business pundit in the world agreed. (I'm sure Michael Dell could tell stories about pundits who said he could never compete against the giant among giants, IBM.)

I'm also old enough to remember when pundits said Amazon would never be able to compete with giants like Barnes & Noble and Borders (Borders is a company that doesn't exist anymore, but twenty years ago it was a giant — look it up).

I also remember when tiny little Google was nothing more than a feature (search, how boring) that giant Yahoo would obviously just buy or duplicate.

And I remember when Netflix's stock price was so depressed you could have bought the entire company for less than the production cost of one summer blockbuster, and everyone was sure it could never survive competing against Blockbuster.com. (Blockbuster is a company that doesn't exist anymore, but fifteen years ago it was a giant – look it up.)

It's obviously hard to compete with entrenched giants, but I'm skeptical of any notion that it's any different now than in the past (if anything, it's probably slightly easier these days).

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#256

Post by scarface74 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #251
scarface74 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, Apple has a monopoly over 20% of the app customers, in the same way that Charter may have a broadband monopoly in 20% of the country even if there are other providers in the other 80%. I can walk into any mobile store and have a choice between dozens of phones. Most people can’t choose their homes internet service provider. Notice that this isn't the same thing as saying that Walmart has a monopoly ov…

> I can walk into any mobile store and have a choice between dozens of phones. Most people can’t choose their homes internet service provider. No, but they can choose their home, which is the relevant analog. If you don't like Charter, just move to another city. If you don't like the Apple App Store, just buy another phone. If the thing you have to buy to get a choice costs 1000 times more than the thing you're choos…

No, but they can choose their home, which is the relevant analog. If you don't like Charter, just move to another city. If you don't like the Apple App Store, just buy another phone.

Yes it was one of the deciding factors when I bought my house was the internet service available.

But if I don’t like Apples policies it’s a lot easier to buy another $500 phone than a $400K house.

What is the competition for Safari then?”

Opera Mini....

Also, the App Store is an app.

Apple “sells” the App Store?

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#257

Post by zepto »

root_axis wrote: post #248
zepto wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A barrier to entry is something a competitor cannot acquire. I have clearly described multiple of those. It’s not just difficult to compete. It is impossible for competitors to acquire the insight that Google has amassed, since it is based on historical data that is not available anymore. Breaking up google wouldn’t make this insight disappear, but the fact that you acknowledge it exists proves my point that barriers…

> A barrier to entry is something a competitor cannot acquire. This is 100% incorrect. By that definition every company's private source code is a barrier to entry for their competitors. Clearly this is wrong. > It is impossible for competitors to acquire the insight that Google has amassed, since it is based on historical data that is not available anymore. I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong about what constitut…

> This is 100% incorrect. By that definition every company's private source code is a barrier to entry for their competitors. Clearly this is wrong.

Nope.

In the case of source code, a competitor has just as much opportunity to solve the same problem in either the same way or a better way.

In the case of data which is no longer available, there is no equivalent way to reproduce it. You either took advantage of it when it was available, or you never can.

These are two different things. Google’s code may be replicable, but their data and access to data are not.

You place "The product is so advanced that nobody can compete" in quote marks as if it’s what I’m saying, but in reality, nobody is saying this. It’s just a straw man that you can keep railing against, as if it’s what other people are saying.

You can repeat your misunderstandings again and again with additional emphasis if you like.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#258

Post by patrec »

everdrive wrote: post #56
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.

>are on their way to abolishing book ownership outright. This is hyperbolic. There has been a resurgence in small bookstores, and Amazon sells quite a few physical books themselves.

It's not in the least hyperbolic. Physical books are going away. You can't buy ebooks on amazon. They have close to 90% of the us ebook market already.

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#259

Post by jklinger410 »

fcarraldo wrote: post #235
jklinger410 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a platform different than a retail space?

Say you've invented a product and are producing them at a small scale (100 units per month). What would it take to sell that product at Walmart? What would it take to sell it on Amazon?

Amazon sells all products, Walmart only sells some. Amazon sells online, Walmart sells in retail and online.

So Amazon might preference another product, while Walmart both preferences other products and doesn't even accept most. Walmart preferences other products online as well.

Yet Amazon is a monopoly? So if Amazon greatly restricted their product offering, they are good to go?

Re: Where Warren’s Wrong

#260

Post by patrec »

briandear wrote: post #153
buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm so glad to hear that should Amazon ever really go overboard with memory-holing ebooks, I can always rely on Apple to distribute the really edgy stuff no one else would dare to publish!
Post reply on HN