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

Calling for Antitrust Reform

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 212 posts

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#51

Post by roenxi »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #16
superb-owl wrote: post #3

The vertical monopolies enjoyed by tech behemoths are absurd. Ever since the Internet Explorer antitrust case [1] it should be clear that things like Apple disallowing other browsers in iOS or Google promoting its own sites in search results are illegal and anticompetitive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... .

I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.

It is worth expanding a bit on why it is inaccurate to call them monopolies. A lot of people aren't sure what the word means.

I'm suspect there is a substantial cohort that thinks making a much better product makes a company a monopoly.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#52

Post by gbear605 »

tehlike wrote: post #36
threeseed wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple allows other browsers. They don't allow other browser engines. And I actually don't see how cementing the Chrome engine's dominance on iOS as well as other platforms is good for the web. Because inevitably that is what will happen as just like in the IE days, websites will only work on that browser as it offers the most proprietary features. And why would you develop for multiple browsers when Chrome is availab…

Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business. E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things. When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast

The web has been progressing too fast, and most of the things that Safari has held back on are features that developers want but users don’t, like push notifications.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#53

Post by nonrandomstring »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #16
superb-owl wrote: post #3

The vertical monopolies enjoyed by tech behemoths are absurd. Ever since the Internet Explorer antitrust case [1] it should be clear that things like Apple disallowing other browsers in iOS or Google promoting its own sites in search results are illegal and anticompetitive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... .

I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.

I agree. I dislike calling them "monopolies". If we use inappropriate language it's easier for opponents to undermine fair arguments.

But how do we deal with this much power ?

The bill "will facilitate innovation and consumer choice by ensuring that big tech companies cannot give preference to their own products and services over the rich diversity of competitive options offered..."

Sure that's one way of seeing a small part of the problem. But it misses so much.

A fair digital market is one thing. A viable technological society that isn't a cloaked form of fascism is another. More than "consumer choice", it's about the RIGHT to have choice - subtle difference but bear with me please.

If I exercise my moral prerogative to say "I will not use any Microsoft products because I believe they are a morally repugnant company" I may currently lose a job. Not because Microsoft are a "monopoly" but because my employer limits my choice. Or I may not get medical treatment because my local healthcare provider only gives access through a Microsoft portal. The problem subsists outside the scope of Microsoft (or Google or whomever) qua monopoly.

Where I think the European Digital Markets Act gets thing a bit more right is it's crafted within the European Interoperability Framework (an older and maybe more ambitious project).

The object isn't to weaken concentrated dominance or self-preference, but to guarantee the user has a choice including the choice NOT TO USE a technology in the case there seems to be "only one choice". An employer, health provider, payments processor or local government would have to provide alternatives or opt-outs without prejudice. That would allow genuine alternative service providers (not necessarily commercial) a foot in the door. It's a different approach that starts bottom-up instead of top-down.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#54

Post by xh-dude »

tehlike wrote: post #36
threeseed wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple allows other browsers. They don't allow other browser engines. And I actually don't see how cementing the Chrome engine's dominance on iOS as well as other platforms is good for the web. Because inevitably that is what will happen as just like in the IE days, websites will only work on that browser as it offers the most proprietary features. And why would you develop for multiple browsers when Chrome is availab…

Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business. E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things. When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast

Maybe there’s a counterfactual timeline where Apple didn’t nuke Flash on phones, hmm… interesting to think about. I think I’m happier with apps rather than apps-in-the-browser in the end, and this might be a similar contrast - it’s technically interesting to have browsers do more or do everything but I’m not convinced it’s the best for users living in software ecosystems.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#55

Post by nodamage »

enragedcacti wrote: post #38
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.

> At trial, the district court ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed most of the district court's judgments. > I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. Consider updating the curriculum? My understanding is that the bundling was actionable because they were considered a monop…

I'm not sure whether by "bundling" you are referring to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows, but if so, that was actually one of the findings that was specifically vacated by the appeals court:

These arguments all point to one conclusion: we cannot comfortably say that bundling in platform software markets has so little "redeeming virtue," N. Pac. Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, and that there would be so "very little loss to society" from its ban, that "an inquiry into its costs in the individual case [can be] considered [] unnecessary." Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 33-34, 104 S.Ct. 1551 (O'Connor, J., concurring). We do not have enough empirical evidence regarding the effect of Microsoft's practice on the amount of consumer surplus created or consumer choice foreclosed by the integration of added functionality into platform software to exercise sensible judgment regarding that entire class of behavior. (For some issues we have no data.) "We need to know more than we do about the actual impact of these arrangements on competition to decide whether they ... should be classified as per se violations of the Sherman Act." White Motor, 372 U.S. at 263, 83 S.Ct. 696. Until then, we will heed the wisdom that "easy labels do not always supply ready answers," Broad. Music, 441 U.S. at 8, 99 S.Ct. 1551, and vacate the District Court's finding of per se tying liability under Sherman Act § 1. We remand the case for evaluation of Microsoft's tying arrangements under the rule of reason.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#56

Post by clairity »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #16
superb-owl wrote: post #3

The vertical monopolies enjoyed by tech behemoths are absurd. Ever since the Internet Explorer antitrust case [1] it should be clear that things like Apple disallowing other browsers in iOS or Google promoting its own sites in search results are illegal and anticompetitive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... .

I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.

> "I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads."

ah, there it is, the ol' "i'm an expert" ploy that we were just talking about elsewhere, and then redirecting to a semantic non sequitur to divert attention away from the core issue of unfair markets. note that you can talk about the nuance of the subject without misdirecting it this way.

(the term 'monopoly' is being taken too literally here, thinking that that's cleverness, when it really indicates a positional weakness because of the revealed impulse to divert)

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#57

Post by makeitdouble »

joecool1029 wrote: post #11
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people act like that's some kind of "gotcha"? To me that fact gives it more weight, not less.

At the end of the day their very existence has enabled Google to argue 'We're not an abusive monopoly. See? We fund this very outspoken open web technology company'. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming independence when they are fully dependent on tech giants. The end result is a delay in the courts using already existing antitrust law to address the problem.

Independance and financial reliance are two separate things. Getting money from Google doesn't make them a group company.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#58

Post by tehlike »

xh-dude wrote: post #54
tehlike wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business. E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things. When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast

Maybe there’s a counterfactual timeline where Apple didn’t nuke Flash on phones, hmm… interesting to think about. I think I’m happier with apps rather than apps-in-the-browser in the end, and this might be a similar contrast - it’s technically interesting to have browsers do more or do everything but I’m not convinced it’s the best for users living in software ecosystems.

If the distribution of the app is gatekept by apple, it's problematic. That's why apple hasn't invested much in web.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#59

Post by tehlike »

gbear605 wrote: post #52
tehlike wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business. E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things. When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast

The web has been progressing too fast, and most of the things that Safari has held back on are features that developers want but users don’t, like push notifications.

Push notifications exists in app and it's easy to categorically disable it. I am absolutely happy that i have a few pwas installed on my phone that lets me do stuff on phone and desktop together.

The fact that i had to/have to install an app (zoom, etc) to accept a conference call is sad.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#60

Post by threeseed »

tehlike wrote: post #36
threeseed wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple allows other browsers. They don't allow other browser engines. And I actually don't see how cementing the Chrome engine's dominance on iOS as well as other platforms is good for the web. Because inevitably that is what will happen as just like in the IE days, websites will only work on that browser as it offers the most proprietary features. And why would you develop for multiple browsers when Chrome is availab…

Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business. E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things. When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast

So because Apple takes time to add features in a secure, private and efficient way they are being accused of lagging behind standards.

And you literally just described the inherent problem. Developers will move to the platform that gives it the most flexibility and features. Users follow. And we end up back in IE days with less diversity and less competition.

Post reply on HN