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

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

#271

Post by xamuel » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #121

Johnny555 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The housing case is non-traditional because the entity the cartel organizes through is the local government rather than a corporation. You have to live somewhere to get a vote there, so the people (sellers) who already own property in a location get a vote while the people (buyers) who are about to move there don't until after they have and have switched from customer to owner. The result is that the existing propert…

You're painting a picture of greedy homeowners restricting housing to make their investments go up. But there are other, more legitimate reasons for homeowners to resist turning every town into high-density mega-apartments. Some people highly value a quiet neighborhood. Some people (like myself) are extremely sensitive to the sounds of neighbors playing music with subwoofers. Good luck avoiding that in a high-density apartment (you'd need about 5 feet of solid concrete to damp out a loud subwoofer next door).

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

#272

Post by repolfx » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #81

bduerst wrote: post #71

Earlier 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…

I think by any fair standard, Microsoft can be considered to have a monopoly in the desktop market

How? Lots of people I know use Macs, and developers/techie types frequently use Linux.

Windows is the most popular for some types of business, arguably most types, but it doesn't have a monopoly within the desktop space.

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

#273

Post by Wowfunhappy » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #270

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #216

Earlier 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.

This is nonsense. You can just buy a different phone -- there are dozens of companies out there. Apple's "tax" allows them to pay for software without selling my data. At the moment, I have a choice: 1) Buy software funded by spying on me (any Android phone) 2) Buy software funded by selling to me (and iPhone). If they're forced to "open up" their platform, then their revenue stream becomes more difficult, and I don'…

> Apple's "tax" allows them to pay for software without selling my data.

It does? macOS seems to do well enough on the privacy front.

I don't think Apple's App Store, or its 30% cut, needs to disappear, but consumers should have the option of running software from outside the store too. That's adding choice, not taking it away.

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

#274

Post by repolfx » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #80

zerocrates wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a huge claim. I've encountered lots of people who have been erased from social media over time and invariably they haven't harmed anyone - not unless you consider "saying things other people dislike" to be harm, of course, which is what's behind the whole speech is violence trope from the left.

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

#275

Post by gwd » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #273

gwd wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. You can just buy a different phone -- there are dozens of companies out there. Apple's "tax" allows them to pay for software without selling my data. At the moment, I have a choice: 1) Buy software funded by spying on me (any Android phone) 2) Buy software funded by selling to me (and iPhone). If they're forced to "open up" their platform, then their revenue stream becomes more difficult, and I don'…

> Apple's "tax" allows them to pay for software without selling my data. It does? macOS seems to do well enough on the privacy front. I don't think Apple's App Store, or its 30% cut, needs to disappear, but consumers should have the option of running software from outside the store too. That's adding choice, not taking it away.

> It does? macOS seems to do well enough on the privacy front.

And my laptop is a lot more expensive than my phone.

Look, you're presumably complaining because you either own, or want to own, an iPhone, in spite of there being dozens of other phones with similar features, and hundreds more with different features. The feature / price point combination of those phones are in part a result of the App Store policies. Changing that cut will change the feature / price point: they'd have to charge more, or give you less, or find alternate sources of revenue (i.e., start spying on you).

Now, maybe their business model would work fine without having to resort to ads or raise the prices too much. But maybe it won't. The only way to find out would be to risk destroying it. Which is completely unnecessary, given that there are so many alternatives.

If you don't like their policies, don't buy their phone. If Spotify doesn't like paying a 30% cut, they don't have to make an iPhone app. There are lots of other options out there.

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

#276

Post by istjohn » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:02 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #150

istjohn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But this is only possible because regulators force the local provider to allow the distant provider to use their infrastructure at a fair price.

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

#277

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #250

BurningFrog wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one is saying monopolies are immortal But they do! They main complaint about monopolies is that they're impossible to outcompete.

Which holds true for both IBM and Microsoft. Both still hold (virtual) monopolies in their respective markets: Mainframes / desktop OS. It's just that these markets are no longer the most important. That's also the reason the EU antitrust law looks at abusing your current power to get a leg up in a new market (e.g. by manipulating search results to promote your shopping service. One of the many things that got Google…

> Both still hold (virtual) monopolies in their respective markets: Mainframes / desktop OS. It's just that these markets are no longer the most important.

That's actually a good point. Thanks!

Of course what's a "market" can be defined in a zillion ways, depending on what point you want to make. It's good to remember that "market" is a theoretical construct, not something tangibly real.

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

#278

Post by Wowfunhappy » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #275

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's "tax" allows them to pay for software without selling my data. It does? macOS seems to do well enough on the privacy front. I don't think Apple's App Store, or its 30% cut, needs to disappear, but consumers should have the option of running software from outside the store too. That's adding choice, not taking it away.

> It does? macOS seems to do well enough on the privacy front. And my laptop is a lot more expensive than my phone. Look, you're presumably complaining because you either own, or want to own, an iPhone, in spite of there being dozens of other phones with similar features, and hundreds more with different features. The feature / price point combination of those phones are in part a result of the App Store policies. Ch…

> And my laptop is a lot more expensive than my phone.

It's not for many people. An iPhone X starts at $1,000.

> The feature / price point combination of those phones are in part a result of the App Store policies. Changing that cut will change the feature / price point: they'd have to charge more, or give you less, or find alternate sources of revenue (i.e., start spying on you).

Apple is a ridiculously profitable company. They quite literally have more money than they know what to do with, as evidenced by their enormous bank account.

I'm happy Apple has been so successful, but I also think a portion of their inordinate profitability has come from anticompetitive practices, namely how locked down the app store is. They don't have a right to that particular revenue stream.

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

#279

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #256

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks. You don’t sound like you know much on this topic. When the poll question is asked as: “Do you support background checks when purchasing a firearm to keep criminals from getting guns” the answer is high. When the question is more appropriately asked as: “Do you support the g…

You could frame a question your way and get “no” even more than the former would get a yes - at least the first example mentions firearms and background checks.

Remind me... is it good practice to put the name of something in the actual definition of itself?

You might not like it, but “universal background checks” are a tax on a right, a defecto national registry, a future ban option by simply denying all transfers of X type gun in the NICS system at any arbitrary time, and entirely unenforceable by default up until people start winding up with guns they couldn’t possibly have received legally over time, oh, and almost completely unrelated to crime as it does nothing for stolen guns, straw purchases, or existing illegal transfers which are the predominant ways criminals obtain weapons. You could also admit that no state that passed “UBC” style checks has seen a reduction in crime as an effect.

I apologize for bringing facts to an emotional topic.

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

#280

Post by bumby » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

istjohn wrote: post #276

bumby wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But this is only possible because regulators force the local provider to allow the distant provider to use their infrastructure at a fair price.

I don't think that's exactly right. Energy prices are broken down to generation and transmissions costs. The transmission costs remain regulated, but generation can charge a market price.

Regulated transmission prevents other providers from creating redundant infrastructure in a deregulated environment. Deregulation is possible not because of regulated infrastructure but in spite of it. I.e. Deregulation could still exist without regulated transmission but it was deemed to be in the public interest to reduce redundant infrastructure.

Incidentally, the 'public interest' has been one of the claims of moving to a deregulated market, with the thought that this would provide lower utility costs. However, this hasn't always worked out:

https://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/06/08/deregulated-texas-electr...