A good example of new vs old generations of data monopolies. But, I think we need to stop thinking of the tech monopoly problem in principled, abstract terms.

A good example of new vs old generations of data monopolies. But, I think we need to stop thinking of the tech monopoly problem in principled, abstract terms. That's hard because it's how law works, and how our moral instincts genrally work. Bloomberg's data monopoly does/did pay well, give them a nice moat and such. But, it couldn't be leveraged in the same way modern data monopolies can. It didn't permeate into new areas every day. It didn't have all these consequences (eg killing privacy) of scale. They din't lock up a dominant position in categories (eg smartphones, cars) that wouldn't exist for a decade or three. Bloomberg's market position is more conventional. Being a monopoly gives them pricing power, and nicer margins. That is tame by today's standards. Today's monopolies can't even be reasoned about in the language of antitrust. they don't act as trusts, generally. Market share is obscure. How do you determine the effects of reduced price competition for maps? It's free. The whole logic of econometrically calculating the harm to a consumer is irelevant. Yet, the idea that Google owns your phone, browser, search engine, drives your car and controls the ads you see 100 times a day.... That's still a worrying thoguht. Economically, it's easy to see (eg search->maps->phones->cars) how one monopoly leads to another and they strengthen eachother.