861–870 of 888 posts
I don't understand how Microsoft gets away with being a bigger monopoly for longer.
Arguably a duopoly with Apple, while ads and web browsing are just google? Not sure just a guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would this breakup hand anything to another country? Competition is good for the economy. Breaking up Google allows new innovators to thrive.
What do you think innovators will feel when they see the government breaking up a private company? Do you think they’ll be more or less motivated to create one to meet the same fate down the road in the unlikely case of success, after immeasurable difficulties and struggle? Ever heard of second order effects and chilling effect of regulation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not punishing success, they're punishing illegal behavior. Breaking up monopolies has a long, successful track record.
From a human rights perspective, there is no unethical behavior. You are allowed to invent things, sell those things, and profit from those things. It's a fundamental human right. The entire antitrust concept is concerning honestly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and here I went for hour and half rabbit hole of what/who is Patek Phillipe, and why you cannot get to their store...
Tell us your findings! BTW, if you're not dressed properly, some high end stores have a security guard who won't let you in. This can get tricky these days, as many wealthy people dress like slobs. I once wandered into Cartier's in NYC, dressed in my trademark slob clothes. The security guard tailed me about a foot behind me, obviously trying to intimidate me into leaving. I just kept me hands in me pocketses, took a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if that fall comes as a result of natural competition and market forces (like what happened to IBM for example). But if the fall was the result of government culling and interference with the free market, a chilling effect will take place among the most vulnerable in the business chain: startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups. The end result will be even less competition and mo…
> startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups Debatable. Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation of even bigger tech companies, including its old rival Apple. > The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices... Going back to the original thread, that’s where foreign competitors come in for customer choice.
It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs.
> Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation
The slap on the wrist Microsoft received with the antitrust action was completely inconsequential on the subject matter (browser bundling) but managed to discourage the company and thus reduced competition exactly when we needed it the most: at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit - instead of startups. Because regulation favors the incumbents. Always.
And you can't count the unfounded startups but I am not happy with the state of competition in today's high-tech scene. I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s. I blame it squarely on government regulation: the Microsoft lawsuit and Sarbanes-Oxley. Their chilling effect on startup creation was clearly visible in the 00's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are learning and teaching machines. We can't help influencing and being influenced. Any interaction we have with another human being will influence us. Reading a book, an article or a simple blog or forum post will influence my mind. A lesson or a chat will influence me. Even a smell or a color will generate thoughts and actions in me. We can't help it - they are using the same mechanism we use for learning and wi…
> I don't think they can "make me" do anything against my own interest or even change my mind I think you lack humility and imagination. Once again, I remind you of the Tobacco industry. After advertisement was abolished, Tabacco use went down significantly. They often targeted young boys with promises of masculinity and prestige. Keep in mind Tabacco isn't your average product either. It kills you, rather painfully…
Can't outlaw them - we still need them to quickly inform & educate the masses. The governments will definitely use them even if just for "good" purposes. Who will define "good" though? In a world without ads people will not build an immunity and any ad will have such an effect that the temptation to use it will become irresistible to anybody in power. And mark my words: they'll use them for worse stuff than smoking and eating.
Also, we'll loose all ad-supported free stuff. And there is a lot there, like pretty much all media. The poor will be the most affected, too, since stuff can be paid with money or attention and they have no money.
> Tobacco industry
I don't know any smoker that is not aware of the dangers. But what they get out of it makes it worth it to them. Believe it or not, most people do not live to maximize their life expectancy, they have other criteria as well - like pleasure or enjoyment of life. Otherwise everybody would start their day with 4 hours in the gym and walk everywhere.
> After advertisement was abolished, Tabacco use went down significantly.
I'm sure there were many other measures taken as well.
> the obesity epidemic [...] believe advertisement has something to do with it
How about the food pyramid pushed by governments that was full on processed carbs? How about the vilification of fat & meat made by the medical establishment I believe? How about people naturally choosing comfort and pleasure over hard work and restraint? How about partners working both with little time left to chop and cook at home?
I doubt you need ads to explain the obesity epidemic.
> I've never seen an ad for not eating. I've never seen an ad for not buying a pair of shoes.
Because we must eat and have shoes - we can't not buy food or shoes. None of those ads made me buy, they just influenced my purchase decision. And I see plenty of ads for health advisors and nutrition experts that tell me to eat more veggies and less sugar. Maybe they are not on main stream media, but alternative media is full of them.
> The trick is getting them to do it and letting them believe they made the choice.
If I wanted to protect my kids from that, I would expose them to more ads, not less. Because they would be even more vulnerable to ads if they saw fewer of them.
I believe that for the best ideas to win, we need to debate more, read more and learn more - not to burn the "bad" books.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think innovators will feel when they see the government breaking up a private company? Do you think they’ll be more or less motivated to create one to meet the same fate down the road in the unlikely case of success, after immeasurable difficulties and struggle? Ever heard of second order effects and chilling effect of regulation?
"More room for us to grow."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. We're talking about the government potentially burning a 2 trillion dollar private company to the ground, and your response is to just shrug and say "oh well, the world will survive"? Yes, of course people will find alternatives. But you still just lit 2 trillion dollars of other people's private property on fire for no discernible benefit!
Your attribution of cause is wrong. We're talking about the government enforcing anti-trust provisions, and if the company is so broken that it cannot succeed without holding a monopoly, letting it fail. Letting dysfunctional companies fail is supposedly a core tenet of capitalism.
I'm so tempted to just leave it at that, but in the interest of not contributing to HN's slow de-evolution into Reddit, I'll add that:
1. Google is arguably not a monopoly, all its products have at least some competition as you yourself already pointed out.
2. Whether Google is "dysfunctional" is a matter of opinion. It's not without problems certainly, but its also a highly successful company with millions (maybe billions) of satisfied customers.
3. A lot of the arguments for Google being a monopoly have less to do with market share and more to do with vertical integration. My point is that vertical integration has a lot of benefits. Trying to use anti-trust law to outlaw it would likely turn out to be very foolish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups Debatable. Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation of even bigger tech companies, including its old rival Apple. > The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices... Going back to the original thread, that’s where foreign competitors come in for customer choice.
> Debatable. It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs. > Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation The slap on the wrist Microsoft received with the antitrust action was completely inconsequential on the subject matter (browser bundling) but managed to discourage the company and thus reduced competition exactly when we needed it the…
Too bad. Entrepreneurs serve the customers. If you won't build it, we won't go. We shall simply patronize other businesses.
> at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit
Microsoft was already stumbling in the Ballmer years long before mobile - they failed to capitalize on the internet itself, they couldn't build a compelling search engine, for starters. They couldn't even get the Zune to be a lasting brand. None of this is due to antitrust, but to their own organizational dysfunctions and inability to execute.
> I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s.
Ah yes, the demise of BeOS and OS/2 was caused by government regulation, and not Wintel dominance.
