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

U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 452 posts

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#281

Post by laurent92 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #270
laurent92 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Costco/Walmart be allowed to sell products along competing ones in their own marketplace? No! Of course! I’d like to see how well they would perform on Target/Best Buy shelves, they probably wouldn’t sell at all. Therefore the only origin for their success is an abuse of marketplace ownership, and it has distorted the market, and therefore has harmed consumers by simply reducing quality brand’s ability to scal…

Should Costco/Walmart be able to sell their own brands on their own website? Should retailers who sell other brands be able to sell their own brand at all? > and therefore has harmed consumers by simply reducing quality brand’s ability to scale, by imposing higher shelf costs for the same brand exposure, and therefore fewer sales. How come brand name items cost more on the brand’s website compared to Walmart’s brands…

Isn’t it because resellers like Walmart always require lower prices than what the brand sells publicly, otherwise brands would always undercut all their resellers? It is the case with electronics, I don’t know for food.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#282

Post by rovolo »

edgyquant wrote: post #258
abduhl wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be clear about something misunderstood about Microsoft: Microsoft won that litigation in America, which is the jurisdiction we're talking about. Framing Microsoft's browser bundling as being "considered" problematic is the same as framing someone who was acquitted as being "considered" a criminal. The Microsoft approach remains an acceptable practice in law and is one of the principle points of the Apple v. Epi…

>Microsoft won that litigation in America No they didn’t? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... > 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.

To expand on this: they basically won the right to bundle on appeal, but they were found to have abused their market power in support of IE.

First Trial:

> On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its remedy.[19] According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.

Appeal:

> On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[29] However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#283

Post by Bjartr »

skystarman wrote: post #153
IgorPartola wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://gizmodo.com/amazon-reportedly-pressures-small-busine... Amazon Reportedly Pressures Small Businesses with Retaliation if They Don't Hand Over User Data

Again, how does this harm consumers?

What are some examples of behavior you would accept as being actual harm to consumers?

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#284

Post by dragonwriter »

rovolo wrote: post #282
edgyquant wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Microsoft won that litigation in America No they didn’t? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... > 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.

To expand on this: they basically won the right to bundle on appeal, but they were found to have abused their market power in support of IE. First Trial: > On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its remedy.[19] According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components. Appeal: > On Nove…

> they basically won the right to bundle on appeal,

If, by “appeal” you mean “settlement negotiated with the new, Microsoft-friendly Administration”, that is correct.

That’s not what “appeal” usually means in a legal context.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#285

Post by lotsofpulp »

laurent92 wrote: post #281
lotsofpulp wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Costco/Walmart be able to sell their own brands on their own website? Should retailers who sell other brands be able to sell their own brand at all? > and therefore has harmed consumers by simply reducing quality brand’s ability to scale, by imposing higher shelf costs for the same brand exposure, and therefore fewer sales. How come brand name items cost more on the brand’s website compared to Walmart’s brands…

Isn’t it because resellers like Walmart always require lower prices than what the brand sells publicly, otherwise brands would always undercut all their resellers? It is the case with electronics, I don’t know for food.

I doubt it, that would be ascribing immense sway to Walmart over other enormous companies like Procter and Gamble, Unilever, etc.

What is more likely is this is a simple example of price discrimination or price segmentation. Theoretically, you can earn the most money by selling each item at the maximum price the buyer is willing to pay. But if the buyers all have varying levels of income or willingness to pay, how do you scale this? Obviously, you can't barter with every single person for every $5 bottle of lotion.

What you can do is create various brands, and maybe differentiate the products slightly, or maybe not. Similar to binning with silicon chips where the chips with higher probabilities of performing better and longer get sold for higher.

So Walmart can go to Johnson and Johnson and say hey, you're selling Lubriderm for $5, make me some lotion that's similar or lower in quality (but still acceptable to Walmart), and we'll sell that for $4. Now, J&J get to sell their $5 lotion to people willing to pay $5, and a cheaper line to people wanting to pay less, but they don't have to lose the people paying $5.

And they do this in many, many layers. P&G, Unilever, J&J, and others all have countless brands they use to hit various price points. And the products may be the same, or may be marginally less in quality. And maybe it behooves some people to pay more for the extra assurance of quality.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#286

Post by eric-hu »

potatoman22 wrote: post #261
aviraldg wrote: post #206

Not looking forward to a future where the US sabotages its best tech companies and we all end up working for Alibaba, Tencent or Baidu (or founding startups with the aim of being acquired by them.)

What's wrong with Chinese tech companies?

Chinese tech companies have to toe the line of the CCP. A long, drawn out example is being made of Alibaba and Jack Ma precisely for not toeing the line last fall.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#287

Post by vxNsr »

com2kid wrote: post #280
lotsofpulp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can Amazon be allowed to sell competing products in their own marketplace, when they own the actual marketplace? They should have been forced to divide their busin Depends on how you define “marketplace”. Costco/Walmart/Best Buy/Target/Home Depot/Lowe’s/grocery stores all sell their own brands next to competing brands in their stores. Is their one store the marketplace? It takes considerably more effort to go t…

For an increasing number of product lines, Walgreens is selling only their house brand. Last time I needed one, I was unable to buy an effective bandage wrap in person, I had to order online. My local Walgreens only had their own house brand "self stick" type that doesn't really stick at all. Went to buy some wrist braces, again, only their house brand. Many styles of wrist braces exist, they sold one type, the type…

> This entire idea of stores being a "marketplace" for multiple brands is only a recent aberration.

Replace marketplace with platform, anyone who calls themselves a platform and competes on the “kill all competitors” level should be regulated as common carrier/public space.

There are numerous ways to identify platforms vs marketplaces and not all of them are related to total market penetration. But I think the legislation should look in that direction, give the FTC the power to declare a company a platform in its space and then allow it to regulate that company in the same way utilities are regulated but obv updated for the internet age.

I think the biggest hinderance to this sorta thing is that all law makers are increasingly biased and refuse to acknowledge their favor. They pretend instead that they are in fact impartial and any appearance to the contrary is simply necessary due to the importance of the issue at hand, or the extremists involved (“I’m really a centrist, they’re just nazis, so I appear to be far left” and vice versa).

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#288

Post by kortilla »

capableweb wrote: post #5

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here.

Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not.

> How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it?

They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific.

> How can Amazon be allowed to sell competing products in their own marketplace, when they own the actual marketplace?

Go to a store, this is what Walmart, Albertsons/Safeway, Costco, etc have been doing for longer than any of the FAANGs have existed.

> How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on their mobile devices? We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different?

The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch.

> Why is Google allowed to rank their own products in front of more general results?

Because it’s their algorithm to do with what they want. If they want to erode public trust by using it to advertise their products, that’s their choice. Other things they adjust the algorithm to do: filter malware, filter porn (by default), filter unreliable sites, etc. You’re going to have a really hard time defining what’s “fair” for a black box algorithm to do.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#289

Post by blihp »

skystarman wrote: post #74
capableweb wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just whatever marketplace, anti-monopoly legislation focuses on markets where the players own a significant share of the full market. In the case of Amazon, it seems like they have above 52% of the e-commerce market in the US in 2019 ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/955796/global-amazon-e-c... ) so probably it's even higher now. When one player now has over half the market, you need to carefully watch w…

The standard for antitrust enforcement for decades has been when the action of a company harms consumers. How does Amazon harm consumers? I mean precisely, how? Amazon is one of the most highly rated companies in the US by its customers. Its NPS score is 69 and 70 is considered "world class". I can get almost anything online shipped to my house the SAME DAY. If Amazon sends you the wrong item they'll let you keep the…

Price and selection. You may love what Amazon offers today. I think they're moderately terrible, even compared to the Amazon of 10 years ago, and I have fewer alternative marketplaces to choose from and products in those marketplaces. Try finding the exact thing/seller/manufacturer you're looking for... for some things I find it damn near impossible due to how they now consolidate listings. I'm also pretty sure that the prices aren't as good as they would in a more competitive environment but can't be certain as Amazon has wiped out much of it. Competition is a key mechanism that allows markets to self regulate.

The vast majority of companies are incapable of self regulating because it is contrary to their primary mission of 'maximizing shareholder value'. This generally just means eliminate your competition and then maximizing profit. In the absence of competitive markets, the government often needs to step in at some point.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#290

Post by ryan93 »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #242
ryan93 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a privilege. The company is their property. Political opinions you dont like on facebook is just something you are going to have to get over.

You're talking past my arguments. Owning a company is a privilege just as much as owning guns are. Companies are registered with government and violators are prosecuted. Do I need to link to articles about children getting their lemonade stands destroyed by cops or what?

Point taken. I just personally feel like the reasoning for taking a company needs to be insanely strong. A lot of current talk on both sides feels very partisan.
Post reply on HN