Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In • Hacker News Board

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#71

Post by bduerst » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

ookdatnog wrote: post #64

WalterBright wrote: post #27

In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon…

I'm not sure I find your examples convincing. MS still firmly monopolizes desktop OS (over 85% market share there). Sure, that market has lost weight due to the rise of mobile, but last I checked we're all still doing our day jobs on desktop computers, and for most office workers (who aren't developers), that's synonymous with working on a Windows machine. For 20-30 years people have had effectively no freedom to cho…

Marketshare != Monopolizing

Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market. Things such as forcing OEMs to not allow linux support, or banning iTunes installation on Windows. Simply being popular isn't the same as a monopoly.

Apple has, on the other hand, been monopolizing their iOS devices with the app store. It is the only way to install apps on iOS and Apple has played fast and loose with competitors (like Spotify) in the past: https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/03/eu-awaiting-apple-respo...

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#72

Post by jhayward » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #36

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For both IBM and Microsoft, I would argue that anti-trust cases at least contributed to their fall from the top. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/15/business/us-vsibm.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... .

IBM's fall happened long after the anti-trust action against them. It's Microsoft that tipped them over, not government regulators, and IBM made one disastrous mistake after another, starting with the PS/2. While MS was convicted of anti-trust, there wasn't much of any action taken against them. The reasons for them slipping would make for an interesting book.

IBMs fall began with the PC, which they made an open design explicitly because of anti-trust pressures. They lost control of the design and the market on PCs, which led to the rise of, well, most of the market since then. Your comments are wrong enough to be attempts at revision of history.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#73

Post by october_sky » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

The WP reported that Rep Cicilline said the "Internet is broken". I agree -- because the ISPs broke the internet, and Congress is letting the FCC allow that. Why aren't they fixing that?

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#74

Post by appstateguy » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #59

And not Comcast, Walmart, AT&T? ... I wonder why

To be fair, they tried to go after AT&T to kill the Time Warner deal (because they own CNN), but the judge basically threw out the case.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#75

Post by bumby » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

Findeton wrote: post #67

WalterBright wrote: post #27

In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon…

I agree, it's bullshit. Not only that, but monopolies are not a bad thing, as long as they are not government granted ones.

What about government granted regulated monopolies like utilities?

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#76

Post by myoon » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

the_watcher wrote: post #63

partiallypro wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct, but in this case it's clear Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on spreadsheets. They just make the best software. They aren't bashing vendors over the head with Excel, etc. IMO the case for Apple or Microsoft being monopolistic is pretty weak compared to Google, Facebook and perhaps Amazon. Apple has a problem because it's such a walled garden. Microsoft generally doesn't have any of the problems the F…

What's the difference between this and Google's "monopoly" on search, which is again based on a superior product (You could argue the same about Facebook, but at least in the search case, there's no network effects tying people to using Google).

This isn't comprehensive, but no one has really talked about Excel being unfairly leveraged to prevent the entry of competitors, gain an unfair advantage in unrelated markets, or exploit its consumers.

Now Google may not have done any of the above with search, but it's likely possible to argue that they have unfairly promoted their own products over others, or "unfairly" chose to not list certain websites.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#77

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #52

devy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is on the list. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20087732

And Netflix is not, probably because Hastings once said net neutrality is no longer their primary battle. IOW, they will pay to play. Disgusting. The selections make this a transparent move.

[deleted]

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#78

Post by wdewind » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

This is the part where the people who brought us PRISM tell us how the real problem is facebook and they are the solution. Ok.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#79

Post by Jorsiem » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #27

In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon…

It's almost like many of the very companies you mentioned were subject to antitrust investigations and without antitrust laws hanging above their heads like a sword of Damocles would be free to use their vast fortunes to stamp out any competition that threatened them ^.^

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#80

Post by bduerst » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

zerocrates wrote: post #65

not_a_moth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy smokes, since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free speech become a "right" thing? It seems like the "From the right" should be "right-wing belief that tech platforms push left-wing biases", true or not, that is their gripe.

Who Twitter & friends choose to allow or not on their services doesn't really involve the First Amendment at all. Or rather, it doesn't as long as they're allowed to choose for themselves. Regulation trying to control who they can kick out and why would implicate the First Amendment quite directly. If you wanted to be charitable, you could say people mad about social media "deplatforming" are more trying to uphold a…

>are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech

Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.