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

111–120 of 212 posts

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#111

Post by userbinator »

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 "standards" which are mainly controlled by Google?

Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast

I don't call that "progress" --- perhaps progress towards a Google monopoly, if you really insist. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Change is Google's weapon. They can churn the standards all they want in order to outrun competitors because only they are big enough to do that. All that "pushing the web forward" BS was merely an euphemism for Google to take control of the Internet with its gigantic army of ADHD-driven developers.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#112

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

ethbr0 wrote: post #97
EarlKing wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that make it any better? "Oh, hey, here's this absolutely horrible law, but don't worry, it only applies if you're successful."

Yes, if the intent is to regulate monopolies. You know what you call a small cap monopoly? Not a monopoly.

Let's say I make a miracle drug for people with a rare disease, patent it, and it costs $0.01 to produce, and I'll watch people die unless they pay me >$1M.

Am I a monopoly since I only have a few million in revenue?

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#113

Post by bombcar »

echelon wrote: post #13
joecool1029 wrote: post #4

>A fair playing field is vital to ensure that Mozilla and other independent companies can continue to act as a counterweight to big tech You literally exist on Google revenue provided in order to prevent antitrust litigation, hardly independent.

> You literally exist on Google revenue provided in order to prevent antitrust litigation, hardly independent. Google used venture dollars to grow to a scale that they could fund the biggest browser team in the world, show download links on the web portal every single person on the planet uses, and pay OEMs to pre-install it. They then bought in early into smartphones and distribute devices with their browser and Goo…

Most of the people I know moved to Chrome because Firefox was sucking sixteen variations of arse and getting worse.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#114

Post by bombcar »

jupp0r wrote: post #89
throwaway43583 wrote: post #82

"We are disadvantaged by the fact that current and future Firefox users, many of whom are privacy and security focused, cannot easily install and keep Firefox as their preferred browser because of confusing operating system messages and settings." uhhh really?

Maybe privacy focussed users have just moved somewhere else or given up and installed Chrome after disasters like Firefox Focus, Firefox Suggest, Leanplum or the TV series Mr. Robot extension that was silently installed.

Privacy focused users who want to use the worst privacy OS in the history of the world have a hard time installing our privacy focused browser so they can use the default privacy suck search engine that is Google!

I don’t know if anyone actually says that with a straight face.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#115

Post by bombcar »

roenxi wrote: post #44

> (2) BUSINESS USER.—The term “business user”— > [skip a little] (B) does not include a person that— > [skip a little] > (ii) is controlled by the Government of the People's Republic of China or the government of another foreign adversary. Might want to read not only the article but the actual legislation. This is an interesting snippet that says interesting things about how Congress is looking at the broader busines…

So is this good or bad for them I wonder?

The word “adversary” seems to imply that it’s antagonist but hmmm.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#117

Post by AmericanChopper »

dathinab wrote: post #100
pitaj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the hell are Walmart and Target, stark competitors in the same space, both monopolies?

People are to focused on the mono-part. IMHO appropriate laws should be applied to any company which directly or indirectly affects some "high" threshold of people. Or another way to think about it would be if it's practically impossible to enter a market even with a decent start capital because of it being dominated by a small number of mega cooperation it's not (much) different then a monopoly. What does it matter…

Having 5 companies that actually compete for business wouldn’t harm consumers. Having 5 companies that avoid competition would, and that’s called a cartel and it’s already illegal according to the anti-trust laws (the Sherman and Clayton Acts).

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#118

Post by bombcar »

nine_k wrote: post #32
Hellbanevil wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a company can loose money on a competiting company just to drive the competing company out of business; I call that a monopoly. No not monopolies like we had like the Bell telephone, but we have 2-3 huge companies that collude and stifle competition. Proving collusion is hard these days though. Too many fresh faced MBA's who are atheists. (I'm a Watch Repairer. I can't buy parts from The Swatch Group, or Reichmo…

> When a company can loose money on a competiting company just to drive the competing company out of business; I call that a monopoly. But this may happen even on a highly competitive market, if one company is a large established one (say, controlling 10% of the market), and the other is a small startup. Just make the key differentiating feature which the new competitor is bringing free in your established product fo…

It happens all the time in the laundromat business - if you try to open one near an existing one you better be ready to withstand months or years of “25 cent loads” and other such fun things.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#119

Post by ethbr0 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #112
ethbr0 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if the intent is to regulate monopolies. You know what you call a small cap monopoly? Not a monopoly.

Let's say I make a miracle drug for people with a rare disease, patent it, and it costs $0.01 to produce, and I'll watch people die unless they pay me >$1M. Am I a monopoly since I only have a few million in revenue?

Not in the sense that we're worried about here.

I feel like I shouldn't have to spell this out, but we're using "monopoly" in the sense of "monopolistic abuse specifically enabled by large revenue and/or platform gatekeeping."

Whether you think other kinds of monopolies are a problem or not is immaterial, because we're talking about a specific type of monopoly, that a number of us do have a problem with.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#120

Post by judge2020 »

dathinab wrote: post #100
pitaj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the hell are Walmart and Target, stark competitors in the same space, both monopolies?

People are to focused on the mono-part. IMHO appropriate laws should be applied to any company which directly or indirectly affects some "high" threshold of people. Or another way to think about it would be if it's practically impossible to enter a market even with a decent start capital because of it being dominated by a small number of mega cooperation it's not (much) different then a monopoly. What does it matter…

Monopolies might be harmful in that sense, but the issue is that monopolies tend to happen naturally as a company grows and expands into a national corporation, which is the most textbook definition of capitalism and the american dream. In general antitrust laws are meant to 'allow' competitors to exist should a new competitor attempt to challenge the incumbents, but they're not an attempt at forcing competition by hurting those incumbents.
Post reply on HN