The Chinese government must be slathering at the mouth about this. Assuming there are some inherent advantages to large tech companies (a collection of smaller companies can't achieve the same economy of scale as one big one), then if America breaks up its large tech companies it will be the perfect opportunity for Chinese ones to fill their place. This would not only expand China's soft power but also their ability to monitor global information flows. Given that much recent development in deep learning is also funded by the deep pockets of monopolistic tech companies, breaking them up (and removing this surplus profit) would slow down US AI development relative to China.
Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
221–230 of 309 posts
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#222Earlier 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... .
The anti trust case had nothing to do with MS losing dominance. It is still dominant on the desktop. - it lost the browser war because it basically disbanded the team for years - it lost the mobile market because they tried to do Windows everywhere.
I would say the anti-trust case/ruling has certainly curtailed abusive behavior, though.
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#223Allow 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…
The fact that I can't purchase any software for my iPhone without Apple taking a 30% cut absolutely harms me as a consumer. It naturally leads to higher prices.
15% when the subscription is over a year and the 30% cut only applies to digital goods so Uber, Lyft and food delivery, for instance, are exempt. My guess is these fees will continue to drop naturally over time, but they probably haven't dropped fast enough.
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you would have a hard time proving this, because software prices are much (much) cheaper than they were pre-app store.
That assertion seems harder to prove than the assertion that a 30% built-in cost leads to higher prices.
How is it harder to prove? It's completely provable and even a huge complaint of developers of the platform.
Everyone expects free/0.99 apps and it costs way more to produce and support them.
Apps, before we had an app store, were absolutely more expensive than this.
Which apps are expensive?
Not to defend Apple here, but when the store was introduced people didn't mind the 30% hit because: 1. Credit card processing wasn't as easy as it is today, and the store takes care of all that 2. Store hands distribution and listing
Before the app store we actually had to go to a physical store to buy software. Sure some you could buy online but really not all that much (comparatively) and discoverability was basically "hope someone with a big blog or CNET review it".
Of course now it is difficult to be discovered because there's tons and tons of other things out there. CC processing is not difficult and there are companies like Stripe that you can go through... etc.
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#225Earlier 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.
Can we include Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion to the list of monopolistic anti-competitive financial companies?
[deleted]
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that I can't purchase any software for my iPhone without Apple taking a 30% cut absolutely harms me as a consumer. It naturally leads to higher prices.
15% when the subscription is over a year and the 30% cut only applies to digital goods so Uber, Lyft and food delivery, for instance, are exempt. My guess is these fees will continue to drop naturally over time, but they probably haven't dropped fast enough.
Other than government intervention, what incentive does Apple have to lower their fees, particularly as they intend for "services" to be an increased money maker going forward?
Perhaps more importantly, why should consumers be subject to Apple's good will? If consumers were able to acquire software from other sources, the market would naturally determine how much of a cut Apple actually deserves.
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market No. I think the distinction here is important and worth being mindful of. Whether or not a company is abusing their monopoly position has no bearing on whether or not they are a monopoly. You can't abuse a monopoly position if you aren't a monopoly to begin with, after all. The distinction is important because in the US…
Again, simply being dominant in a market _is not_ being a monopoly. Monopolies are definitively the exclusive control or possession of the supply of the market. Just as a Monopsony is exclusive control or possession of the demand in a market. Microsoft has dominant market position but they do not control the entire supply of OS, hence they are the popular choice but not the exclusive choice. Whether or not a monopoly…
[deleted]
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market No. I think the distinction here is important and worth being mindful of. Whether or not a company is abusing their monopoly position has no bearing on whether or not they are a monopoly. You can't abuse a monopoly position if you aren't a monopoly to begin with, after all. The distinction is important because in the US…
You're right, but the victory is pyrrhic. Sure, by the dictionary definition of the word "monopoly", you've got a point, but in the actionable legal sense, you do not, and it's in the legal sense that we're discussing (not all that accurately, admittedly).
Everyone here who isn't talking about semantics is using the word monopoly to mean "abusive monopoly".
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anti trust case had nothing to do with MS losing dominance. It is still dominant on the desktop. - it lost the browser war because it basically disbanded the team for years - it lost the mobile market because they tried to do Windows everywhere.
I would say the anti-trust case/ruling has certainly curtailed abusive behavior, though.
The only “abusive” behavior it curtailed was not allowing them to forbid OEMs from installing alternate operating systems - that didn’t make a difference.
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that being forced into 6% commission regardless of the effort it took to buy/sell your house is a problem, I don't think that extra few percent is what's pricing people out of buying a home.
The effective cost implications are more likely 10-12% at each sale. A seller will try to increase the price of the house to cover these commissions. Your comment is focused on buying a home, but there can be dramatic consequences for home owners, the stakeholders forced into paying both agents. When a seller has little equity and a poor housing market, exiting a primary mortgage can be financially impossible. A rece…
Just so you know, that "$400 expense" survey has been widely misreported: https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2019/apr/19...