Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 309 posts

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

#141

Post by bduerst »

Havoc wrote: post #38
partiallypro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means Microsoft has a better product, that doesn't mean it's a monopoly.

Better product for sure. But that doesn't mean it's not a monopoly. >That means Microsoft has a better product, that doesn't mean it's a monopoly. Actually that's the text book definition of monopoly. Monopolies are thus characterized by * a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service - nobody else is making commercial spreadsheet tools * a lack of viable substitute goods - all the other stuff (google…

Spreadsheets are becoming old tech as big data picks up, which is why you're seeing a split in the substitute products.

For smaller datasets, there's online solutions like Google Sheets and Airtable. For larger datasets, there's thousands of different databases that work better than Excel. Either way, consumers have options.

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

#142

Post by mailslot »

btilly wrote: post #104
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…

Don't forget AT&T. They became a monopoly, and wiped out everyone else. Whole industries would have probably not arisen if they hadn't been blocked by anti-trust. And then they were split up. If you have a land line, odds are that your local phone, your long distance service, and your cell carrier are all carried by pieces of AT&T. Pieces that would have reassembled if not blocked by anti-trust. And even if your prov…

The government sanctioned AT&T’s monopoly in exchange for building the world’s most capable telecommunications. They’d probably still be the only telecom, if they could have behaved.

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

#143

Post by shmerl »

fyoving wrote: post #95

Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is: "The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations" It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes…

> Antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed

So why does it allow harmful mega-mergers of ISPs and corrupt buying of laws that forbid building municipal networks, which is just a tactic to cement local monopolies?

The whole net neutrality topic is primarily about competition law. And lawmakers still (supposedly) can't wrap their heads around such basic thing, dancing to the tune of said monopolists, who pull their strings with legalized corruption.

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

#144

Post by georgeecollins »

Johnny555 wrote: post #107
fyoving wrote: post #95

Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is: "The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations" It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes…

there is a long list of companies and markets worthy of antitrust scrutiny... The real drag on the economy are the high prices of healthcare and housing I'm curious what you see as the antitrust violations that lead to high housing prices?

>>> I'm curious what you see as the antitrust violations that lead to high housing prices?

https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar

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

#145

Post by bduerst »

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).

Google doesn't have a monopoly on search - the supply for search engines has many equally accessible competitors supplying the market.

FB has a monopolistic-power in the network effects like you said, but even then entrants like Snapchat show that the network effects can be gained for new competitors.

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

#146

Post by jhayward »

dragonwriter wrote: post #99
jhayward wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> which they made an open design explicitly because of anti-trust pressures. AFAIK, they didn't not, in fact, make it an “open design” intentionally. They published clear specs to encourage peripheral development, which also helped clone makers, but the BIOS was proprietary and had to be reverse engineered by clone makers to be legal. IBM sued several clone makers for infringement (largely for copying rather than rev…

I suppose it's possible to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of "open". The BIOS was the only bit of the design that IBM had any IP in, and they definitely intended other hardware manufacturers to make compatible products, if not perhaps entire systems.

It's important to remember the regulatory environment that IBM had operated in at the time.

For more than a decade it had been illegal for IBM to exclude 3rd party hardware makers from its mainframe market, beginning with the so-called "plug compatible" peripherals, which resulted in publishing standards for the IBM Channel interface, the prohibition on refusing to allow e.g. 3rd party memory for mainframes, and importantly, the requirement that IBM license its operating systems and software to run on any manufacturer's hardware.

This was the environment that the PC was designed in. The (IMO) open design - which was not an accident - was really the only possibility that IBM had while still holding to those earlier legal restrictions on bundling, tying, and license restriction.

The fact that Compaq could reverse-engineer the BIOS was inevitable given the market opportunity. IBM tried to hold on to that thin reed but it was a doomed effort. As the "PC Compatible" market took off IBM became irrelevant to much of the growth in the industry.

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

#147

Post by studentrob »

root_axis wrote: post #139
studentrob wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your evidence? I cited mine above. People who understand NN support it because it only enables entrenched interests to get more subscription fees from customers. The strong arm is regional ISP broadband monopolies. Through them, a slew of services can be forced to pass costs on to consumers. And, by the way, this map [1] is about to feature one fewer "competitor", [1] https://www.webfx.com/blog/wp-content/upl…

> What is your evidence? I cited mine above. My evidence is the congressional record which indicates republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose NN and democratic politicians overwhelmingly support it. I wouldn't regard a single post on a subreddit as evidence; it is at best an anecdote, and one of dubious credibility IMO.

> congressional record

Politicians do what their constituents want now? That's new.

> I wouldn't regard a single post on a subreddit as evidence

Visit [1]. See the spike in the graph? That is the link I posted above. It is not anecdotal. As I said, this is the most upvoted comment ever removed from that sub.

[1] https://revddit.com/r/the_donald

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

#148

Post by nickpsecurity »

bduerst wrote: post #71
ookdatnog wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

They have patents on a lot of stuff. I think cut and paste was one but memory might be off. They use patent suits to suck billions out of Android suppliers. We'd probably have seen that with Windows-compatible desktops like ReactOS if they got mature enough with enough users.

Further, Oracle going for the API ruling means companies like them could monopolize at API level by making ports even riskier and costlier. Then, there's the interface look-and-feel which Apple likes suing over. That's at least three ways they can go after competitors.

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

#149

Post by AnthonyMouse »

arcticbull wrote: post #134
Meekro wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visa and Mastercard have a pretty effective duopoly, too! Their fees and chargeback procedures are a drag on the entire economy. Getting banned by them effectively kills your ability to accept payments, and many legal but politically unpopular businesses find themselves in the crosshairs.

Chargebacks are overwhelmingly positive. It allows you to use your credit card fearlessly knowing the card companies have your back. Truthfully, if they decreased payment volume or "dragged the economy" card companies wouldn't offer them.

The problem with chargebacks is that they're mandatory, even in cases where the seller is more trustworthy than the buyer. Then you end up with all the losses associated with buyer fraud even if the overwhelming majority of legitimate buyers would have enough faith in the seller to waive the ability to conduct a chargeback in exchange for a discount in the amount of the fee that has to be charged to cover them.

The fee should be on the customer side and they should have a choice whether to pay it per transaction. Paying for insurance is fine, being forced to pay for it when you don't need it is not.

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

#150

Post by bumby »

istjohn wrote: post #101
bumby wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can avoid unnecessary redundant infrastructure as an example. Imagine trying to dig for construction when there are 30 potential cable companies running utilities underground.

That's why utilities like electricity and gas are tightly regulated to protect consumers.

I don't disagree but the movement has been to deregulate these exact examples. A customer can literally buy electricity from a provider one thousand miles away at a cheaper rate if they live in a deregulated area.
Post reply on HN