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

Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 266 posts

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#171

Post by AlexandrB »

syzar wrote: post #95
4eleven7 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antitrust law does exactly this. If Amazon owning EA overly concentrates market power/forms a monopoly, it'll be rejected and the deal with fail. Why would you want to put an upper cap on the size of companies? It feels like stifling innovation and productivity, which will be overly negative for everyone.

It seems to me most innovation comes from increased competition and upstart companies. Do large conglomerates provide the main driver of innovation?

I think it depends. Bell labs famously invented many of the foundations of modern computing while Bell was a monopoly. It's also hard to do capital intensive research (e.g. semiconductor manufacturing) as an upstart. You need the resources of an Intel.

Meanwhile, companies that leverage existing technologies in new ways can be innovative with much fewer resources - e.g. your typical web startup.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#172

Post by coldpie »

bluedino wrote: post #141
ethbr0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon's strategy is to be a smarter GE, by expanding into new areas that feed power into the Amazon flywheel. EA would give them control over a core library of content and IP, that they could use to (a) ensure continued access into home consoles for their other products, (b) run as a game on demand service attached to Prime, or (c) make exclusive to launch their own console. And it seems like the sort of business Am…

>> Amazon's strategy is to be a smarter GE I was thinking Mitsubishi. Powerplants and ships would be helpful to them.

> Mitsubishi

In high school, I was thrilled that my DVD player had the same logo as my friend's motorcycle.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#173

Post by friendzis »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #146
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Twitch can be replaced / surpassed. Its technology is nothing new, right now it mainly has critical mass due to the amount of people using it. It only takes one mistake for them to lose a lot of that engagement.

> It only takes one mistake for them to lose a lot of that engagement. How true is this? Because YouTube and Google have made plenty of mistakes yet it continues to dominate.

Youtube is a library, Twich is about live streaming, so in theory it is much easer to replace.

However, critical mass is very hard to move, because platform switch would be revenue loss for streamers.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#174

Post by KoftaBob »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #143
dmurray wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is vertical integration. Horizontal integration is usually what is considered anti-competitive.

Wasn't Standard Oil vertically integrated?

"Standard Oil dominated the oil products market initially through horizontal integration in the refining sector, then, in later years vertical integration"

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#175

Post by emacsen »

haunter wrote: post #82
samwillis wrote: post #26

It seems to me that Amazons long term strategy is to become a "Conglomerate of Brands", leveraging the profits from one business unit to buy out unrelated business. This sort of acquisition doesn't, as far as I can see, advance a particular core business unit (I'm aware Amazon have toyed with games publishing, but its not exactly a core business unit). I suppose it makes sense, investors want their investment to be s…

They also want to become more involved with live sport broadcasts (NFL and Premier League for example). EA has some major sport licenses (NHL, NFL, FIFA, PGA, F1, UFC)

FIFA they let go, because FIFA wanted to charge them $250m a year if I recall... FIFA wouldn't back down so eventually EA said they'd go out on their own, since they still have to license every specific league separately anyway.

Next year's EA soccer/football game is going to be called "EA Sports Football Club" "EA Sports: FC". It'll be a big gamble, but I think EA is betting that they'll save money in the long term even if they spend a ton on marketing.

I mention this because I wonder how much these sports licenses are worth after the video game is well established.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#176

Post by falcolas »

dktp wrote: post #126
InsomniacL wrote: post #47

1, Amazon runs the platform that sells the games - Amazon 2, Amazon runs the platform that people use while playing the games - Twitch 3, Amazon runs the platform that hosts the servers to play the games - AWS 4, Amazon runs the platform that you play the game on - Luna 5, Amazon runs the platform that creates the games - EA how is this not anti-competition for anyone running a company that competes in only one of th…

None of these are monopolies. Twitch and AWS are biggest players in their fields, but both have healthy competition I think it would be way easier to make a case that Microsoft shouldn't be able to buy Activision. It seems like major gaming studios are slowly getting acquired by either Tencent or Microsoft

Don’t forget the Embracer Group. A nearly silent megalith of game development studios.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#177

Post by PaulHoule »

alberth wrote: post #120
samwillis wrote: post #26

It seems to me that Amazons long term strategy is to become a "Conglomerate of Brands", leveraging the profits from one business unit to buy out unrelated business. This sort of acquisition doesn't, as far as I can see, advance a particular core business unit (I'm aware Amazon have toyed with games publishing, but its not exactly a core business unit). I suppose it makes sense, investors want their investment to be s…

This isn't Amazon "long term strategy", it's been their strategy from the very start. They always wanted to be Sears but in the online world (who had their own credit card, Discover, their own branded product like Craftsman/Diehard/Kenmore/etc).

Amazon feels more like Sears everyday.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#178

Post by paulryanrogers »

KoftaBob wrote: post #174
paulryanrogers wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't Standard Oil vertically integrated?

"Standard Oil dominated the oil products market initially through horizontal integration in the refining sector, then, in later years vertical integration"

Company towns were vertically integrated. I wouldn't call them a bastion of free markets

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#179

Post by stickfigure »

seydor wrote: post #152
InsomniacL wrote: post #47

1, Amazon runs the platform that sells the games - Amazon 2, Amazon runs the platform that people use while playing the games - Twitch 3, Amazon runs the platform that hosts the servers to play the games - AWS 4, Amazon runs the platform that you play the game on - Luna 5, Amazon runs the platform that creates the games - EA how is this not anti-competition for anyone running a company that competes in only one of th…

They dont have a payments processor yet. Someone tell Jeff But also: do they disallow competitors to use their services/sell their games? AFAIK antimonopoly litigation requires the existence of an actual market obstruction, not its hypothetical existence.

https://pay.amazon.com/ has been a thing for a very long time. I integrated it into a site back in... the late 2000s, I think?

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#180

Post by 4eleven7 »

syzar wrote: post #95
4eleven7 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antitrust law does exactly this. If Amazon owning EA overly concentrates market power/forms a monopoly, it'll be rejected and the deal with fail. Why would you want to put an upper cap on the size of companies? It feels like stifling innovation and productivity, which will be overly negative for everyone.

It seems to me most innovation comes from increased competition and upstart companies. Do large conglomerates provide the main driver of innovation?

True, and I agree, but an 'upper cap' wouldn't be used against just the companies that we don't think provide innovation (such as Amazon in this scenario). The caps would also be used against Tesla and Apple, two very big drivers of innovation, and probably many others. The world would be a worse place without Tesla, and without Apple. Arguably the world could be a better place without Amazon, but that is surely down to consumer voting with their wallet, the executive team, and shareholders encouraging Amazon, rather than the government not restricting Amazon. Amazon aren't buying EA, only because they can.

Once again, how can someone define an 'upper cap', is it market size? Is it revenue, or employee count? Market share? The unintended consequences of an upper limit doesn't seem to me something we should be encouraging.

I could be wrong, it just feels like we shouldn't be restricting everyone because of one bad actor.

Post reply on HN