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

Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#161

Post by bilbo0s »

soundwave106 wrote: post #134
threatofrain wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about his freedom as a consumer to shop at competitors to Amazon, Google, etc. People probably don't feel the same way about AT&T. Consumers prefer Google and Amazon, and it would cost them little to switch. Most consumers have no choice but to accept AT&T or Comcast.

You don't have to be a total 100% monopoly market to be successfully accused of anti-competitive behavior, however. When Microsoft was ruled to have violated antitrust laws in the early 2000s, there were alternatives available for browsers (eg Netscape) and operating systems (eg Linux and Mac OS). However, in the US court's opinion, Microsoft made it too difficult to install competing browsers on Windows. I believe t…

>You don't have to be a total 100% monopoly market to be successfully accused of anti-competitive behavior...

But you do have to have done something that is anti-competitive in some market. (Not only that, but you have to have a competitive advantage in the market in which you take the anti-competitive action.)

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#162

Post by treis »

ucaetano wrote: post #155
treis wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and deploy maps from a 3rd party before them. You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true. >Hard to argue that things are worse now... It's clearly worse. Instead of being able to choose from competing vendors you're effectively stuck with Google and your bus…

> You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true. No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices? > Instead of being able to choose from competing vendors you're effectively stuck with Google and your business depends on their whims. There are plenty of other vendors to choose from. Did you miss all the "we swit…

>No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand. To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world.

>There are plenty of other vendors to choose from. Did you miss all the "we switched from Google Maps to XXX" posts on Hacker News?

There's really not. At best there's plenty of vendors reselling Open Street Map. And they don't really match Google Maps. Which is why they have a tiny market share compared to Google Maps.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#163

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rifung wrote: post #107
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google can (and has) ocassionaly placed banners suggesting a switch to chrome, influencing the browser market. But so can anybody else. Google sells ads on their search engine to anyone. If you asked nicely enough with a large enough pile of money they would presumably even sell you a banner placement. What is the objection supposed to be? That Google didn't pay itself for the ad space? How would it have changed an…

> What is the objection supposed to be? I work at Google; opinions are my own. I believe the objection is that it's an unfair competitive advantage and hurts competition. The reasoning is similar to that given when Google was fined for Google Shopping in the EU. > But so can anybody else. Google sells ads on their search engine to anyone. If you asked nicely enough with a large enough pile of money they would presuma…

> I believe the objection is that it's an unfair competitive advantage and hurts competition.

But the advantage is just having more resources. Mozilla could likewise pay Facebook/Reddit/Yahoo to push Firefox... if they could afford it. You could call it "unfair" that they don't have the money, but that has nothing to do with Google search in particular.

> You could make the same argument about Microsoft with Internet Explorer then no? I'm sure if someone offered to pay many billions of dollars, Microsoft would have gladly included their browser with Windows too.

But that's the opposite of how tying works. The classic tying case is you have a monopoly on cars and you require all your customers to buy your brand of gasoline, so you also monopolize the market for gasoline.

The Internet Explorer case was really bizarre, because they kept talking about the browser market, but what they were really tying to Windows was (web) apps. It was the same thing with Java. Microsoft wanted to tie the app ecosystem to Windows, so you had to use their platform-specific APIs and the app developer and all their customers get tied to Windows. Microsoft never made a dime from the browser market, nor ever intended to.

But Google pushing Chrome is the other side of the coin. They also have no intention to make any money selling web browsers, but their goal isn't to tie Google search to Chrome -- it works fine in Firefox and IE -- their goal was to prevent Microsoft from using dominance in the browser market to tie Google search (the web app) to Windows through the browser. It's an anti-tying move.

To get where Microsoft was they would have to be preventing other browsers from using Google search while preventing Chrome from using non-Google search (as Microsoft interfered with Netscape running on Windows, prevented IE from being removed and discontinued IE for non-Windows platforms as soon as it gained share), and then at the same time filling Chrome with non-standard proprietary APIs with no public spec (as Microsoft did with IE/ActiveX/etc.) so that third party pages would only work in the browser that only worked with Google search, and competing browsers would have no efficient way to know how to produce the same behavior.

Just promoting a free standards-compliant browser with published source code isn't anywhere near that.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#164

Post by AnthonyMouse »

timoth3y wrote: post #130
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looking at actual competitive commodity markets for things like lumber, oil, copper, etc, we see a lot of players in the market. Those are all things that come from the earth (so inherently have diffuse supply), sell into the global market (so the market is large and diverse, leaving space for upstarts to find a niche) and are of strategic interest to national governments many of which then act to ensure that an in…

> Examples of markets where this actually happens: Coca Cola (as discussed), Walmart (in local areas), YKK in zippers, AB inBev in Brazil, Luxottica in eyewear. None of these is the result of the "slight price advantage" and increased efficiencies you claimed. Luxottica is expensive and uses their vertically integrated monopoly power to keep competitors like Oakley out. Warby Parker gained success so quickly largely…

> Luxottica is expensive and uses their vertically integrated monopoly power to keep competitors like Oakley out.

The eyewear market is weird because opticians use free eye exams as a loss leader to sell expensive frames, and if you have insurance then the insurance is paying and customers aren't sensitive to price, so the market selects for expensive high margin frames even though they're an inexpensive commodity with low barriers to entry. (This is a primary reason why healthcare is so expensive in general.)

The scale advantage then isn't low "price" (because the market selects for a specific high price, namely the limit on what insurance will pay), rather the advantage is lower cost which leaves the seller with more to spend on marketing etc.

And this leaves a niche for the likes of Warby Parker to capture the segment of the market which is paying out of pocket and is actually sensitive to price.

> Coke, where it controls the market it does so by controlling distribution, menus, and retail space, not by offering cheaper products.

But it still sells at competitive prices. Having retail space gives them volume, not pricing power.

> These are not monopiles. They are more akin to standards. It's like saying the kilogram has a monopoly. It's kind of true if you play with the meaning of the word a bit, but in terms of markets, there is no monopoly power.

That's the point. They have overwhelming market share but minimal market power. If suddenly Linux cost a lot of money, people would switch to BSD.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#165

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ArchTypical wrote: post #160
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google can (and has) ocassionaly placed banners suggesting a switch to chrome, influencing the browser market. But so can anybody else. Google sells ads on their search engine to anyone. If you asked nicely enough with a large enough pile of money they would presumably even sell you a banner placement. What is the objection supposed to be? That Google didn't pay itself for the ad space? How would it have changed an…

> But so can anybody else. Google sells ads on their search engine to anyone. There's no guarantee (read the demand partner legal disclaimers, there's specifically NO guarantees) that there's an equitable distribution. There have been analyses to show that the algorithm has short-circuits to benefit Google products, featured here on HN and other places. I don't have them onhand, but it's openly discussed (meaning bey…

> There have been analyses to show that the algorithm has short-circuits to benefit Google products, featured here on HN and other places.

Analyses by competitors who don't like their search ranking. The analyses show a bias alright, but whose?

> I don't have them onhand, but it's openly discussed (meaning beyond being taboo)

That's not a discussion of purposely harming competitors, it's partisans being partisan -- and getting shut down by internal processes designed to prevent exactly that.

Large organizations don't prevent misbehavior by hiring perfect humans. They do it by having layered defenses against it. The fact that the partisans failed is if anything evidence that the internal controls are effective.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#166

Post by Vinnl »

ucaetano wrote: post #140
Vinnl wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers. Is that not exactly what that example is about? I, as a consumer, will not be able to experience their super-cola.

Again, who cares? Consumer protection isn't about letting you taste some weird cola. It is about price. Read the Supreme Court's definition.

But even then: if coca cola can prevent competitors from emerging, that removes downwards price pressure for them, so prices rise?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#167

Post by dools »

ucaetano wrote: post #152
dools wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a monopoly is perfectly fine" <-- where do you pull that statement from?

From the Department of Justice: For this reason, antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry. Where monopoly power is acquired or maintained through anticompetitive conduct, however, antitrust law properly objects. A monopoly that doesn't abuse its market power to prevent competition is either a natural monopoly or a…

Okay so they're not illegal. I wouldn't say "perfectly fine" though... As you point out, it's a temporary situation in the case that they're not being anti-competitive. I would argue that any situation where there is a natural monopoly it should be state run rather than privately run because that situation is, by its very nature, anti-competitive (first in, best dressed!)

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#168

Post by dools »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #127
dools wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is an "economic leftist"?

Someone who is left-wing economically? Are you just asking what values qualify as economically left-wing?

Sure, what values qualify as economically left-wing?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#169

Post by ucaetano »

treis wrote: post #162
ucaetano wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true. No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices? > Instead of being able to choose from competing vendors you're effectively stuck with Google and your business depends on their whims. There are plenty of other vendors to choose from. Did you miss all the "we swit…

>No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices? I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand. To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world. >There are plenty of other vendors to choos…

> To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world.

No, that's not how it works. You can't compare to a random, made up scenario. Go look up antitrust cases...

Seriously, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand.

> And they don't really match Google Maps.

Your product sucking is not a antitrust issue, it is simply your incompetence.

Asking that Google or Coca-Cola be punished for having a better product isn't only naive, is ignorance.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#170

Post by ucaetano »

Vinnl wrote: post #166
ucaetano wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, who cares? Consumer protection isn't about letting you taste some weird cola. It is about price. Read the Supreme Court's definition.

But even then: if coca cola can prevent competitors from emerging, that removes downwards price pressure for them, so prices rise?

It isn't if the can, it is if they do.

And it doesn't seem like they do, there is plenty of competition in the non-alcoholic drink space.

Post reply on HN