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

Alibaba breaks itself up in six

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 321 posts

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#111

Post by bioemerl »

crop_rotation wrote: post #85
bioemerl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this is also the source of all their monopolistic behavior. Apple hardware should be incentivized to make great hardware for any operating system. Apple software should be incentivized to sell to many manufacturers and also to not obey apple hardware's demands for locks to prevent things like the replacement of batteries. Their union could be a great thing, but apple decided to use it to be a bunch of m…

Great hardware for any OS sounds good in theory but not gonna happen in practice. When 10 hardware providers are supplying hardware for an OS, the hardware becomes a commodity, and the focus tends to go to cheapest for a given spec. You can see the same phenomenon in Windows and android hardware. If you supply a premium hardware for a premium price in a commodity market, you will just not have any market share. Peopl…

There are lots of windows laptops with quality hardware.

There are cheap ones too, but that's the whole point of choice.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#112

Post by crop_rotation »

hulitu wrote: post #5
fidrelity wrote: post #4

Isn't this very similar to the plotline of Inception? Looks like the CPC has mastered multi-layered inception. /s

At least some countries fight monopolies, not promote them. /s

The CCP is not fighting monopolies, it is fighting companies that it doesn't like. Taobao/Tmall will still be a monopoly on online retail and will be a full part of Alibaba without taking external investment.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#113

Post by namdnay »

pmoriarty wrote: post #97
endisneigh wrote: post #8

It's interesting to contrast China's approach of not allowing business to operate within the plane of power in which the government does, vs. the United States, which has companies whose power is certainly on the level of many state governments.

There's no bright, clear separation between governments and corporations in America. Corporate execs regularly get jobs in government, and often wind up "regulating" the very industries/companies they came from. It's also an open secret in Washington that when politicians retire they often get cushy, high paying jobs in the very companies they regulated or provided government contracts to. It's a revolving door betwe…

> and often wind up "regulating" the very industries/companies they came from

the other way of seeing that is that if you want to regulate a domain you're going to want to have people who know the domain

> when politicians retire they often get cushy jobs, high paying jobs in the very companies they regulated or provided government contracts to

again, it makes sense for the company to buy the services (and the address book) of someone who knows everyone in the space.

of course all this creates a big incentive to cosy up to those companies, but it's not as black as you are suggesting

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#114

Post by ShaurAsar »

duxup wrote: post #6

It’s always hard for me to understand the why when it comes to China’s government. “Investors cheer the move as signalling the end of China’s tech crackdown” If this is government action then why would this be the “end” of government involvement?

China's government has been cracking down on its tech industry for some time now, and this has created uncertainty for investors. However, recent moves by the government, such as the approval of new video game titles and the easing of regulations for foreign investors, have been seen as positive signals for the industry.

It's important to note that the Chinese government is not monolithic, and different factions within it may have different goals and priorities. The recent actions that have been perceived as positive by investors may reflect a shift in priorities or strategy by certain government officials or agencies.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#115

Post by mynameisvlad »

bioemerl wrote: post #106
mynameisvlad wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately this is also the source of all their monopolistic behavior. How can you be showing “monopolistic behavior” when you’re neither the only player in the game, nor the biggest?

If you want until they're the only player you're way way too late and huge damage has already been done.

That both doesn’t answer my question nor is it actually true.

In fact, splits almost always happen when it’s actually a monopoly not some vague hand-wavy goal-shifting “monopolistic behaviors”.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#116

Post by henry2023 »

maxwell wrote: post #108
ShaurAsar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some believe that breaking up these companies would promote healthy competition, while others argue it could harm innovation and limit consumer choice. It is up to policymakers and regulators to carefully consider the potential benefits and drawbacks before making any decisions.

Who believes this could harm innovation and limit consumer choice?

Maybe 40 to 80 tech executives

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#117

Post by namdnay »

bioemerl wrote: post #106
mynameisvlad wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately this is also the source of all their monopolistic behavior. How can you be showing “monopolistic behavior” when you’re neither the only player in the game, nor the biggest?

If you want until they're the only player you're way way too late and huge damage has already been done.

Apple's phone amrket share is 20%, one point above Samsung. They're no way near a monopoly

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#118

Post by crop_rotation »

bioemerl wrote: post #111
crop_rotation wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great hardware for any OS sounds good in theory but not gonna happen in practice. When 10 hardware providers are supplying hardware for an OS, the hardware becomes a commodity, and the focus tends to go to cheapest for a given spec. You can see the same phenomenon in Windows and android hardware. If you supply a premium hardware for a premium price in a commodity market, you will just not have any market share. Peopl…

There are lots of windows laptops with quality hardware. There are cheap ones too, but that's the whole point of choice.

There are but they do not compare to a mac. The point of choice for me is to be able to buy an integrated experience.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#119

Post by toyg »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #30
izacus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple Hardware, Apple Licensed OSes, Apple Online Services, Apple Financial Services (apple card & apple pay & co), Apple News Services, Apple Mapping Services. Think of everything that Apple (Meta, Google) do, think on which components would benefit from having startups replace and distrupt them and then break them up on those seams while forcing them to allow competition between their fragments (e.g. iPhone with An…

Which of them will own apple.com? Which of them will own Apple trademark? Which of them will own Apple logo?

Trivialities that antitrust regulations already cover. It would not be the first time a company has been broken up.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#120

Post by [deleted] »

deeviant wrote: post #90
maxwell wrote: post #7

Great move. This will increase local competition and wages, diversify ideas and design, and make shareholders more money than as a single entity. As with Standard Oil and AT&T. The U.S. should continue investigating splitting up Alphabet, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft.

And this, is how tankies are born.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN