3 ms·

Facebook isn't really threatened by either of those companies. They own Instagram. They also own WhatsApp, which is overtaking Snapchat in users[1]. [1] https:

• mattnewton 9y ago
  They were threatened enough to buy them at large valuations is gp's point.
  • smallnamespace 9y ago
    The fact that they were easily able to buy them up and still have piles of cash is exactly the sort of thing that a natural monopolist is able to do.
    • true_religion 9y ago
      But anyone can buy a company in its infancy, and neuter it before it becomes a threat. This is possible even if the market is not one that would naturally give rise to monopoly, but rather one where monopoly is ensured by governmental acts or anti-competitive behavior by the most dominant company. I prefer the more standard definition where a market that naturally tends to monopoly is one where a multi-company state is less efficient than a single company state. In social networking, despite the power of network effects, having multiple companies is still efficient simply because people want to compartmentalize their networks of friends and interests. People want to use WhatsApp to talk to group A, and Skype to group B. There's a tendency to assume that since phones were a monopoly, and mail is a monopoly, then all communication and social interaction aides must be naturally monopolies too, but that's not the case. Phones and mail were monopolies due to physical efficiency, not due to the desires of consumers.
  • edaemon 9y ago
    Are they all that threatening if they can simply buy them?