4 ms·

Definitely. Instead of a regulatory body proactively thinking about practices as anti-competitive, there appears to be a very reactionary approach of punishing

Definitely. Instead of a regulatory body proactively thinking about practices as anti-competitive, there appears to be a very reactionary approach of punishing large incumbents that pursue m&a out of necessity or approaching anti-competitiveness as partisan politics.

osrec 8y ago
Yeah, I think regulators realise we have a monopoly brewing once they see people buying Google branded milk from Googlemarts, having driven there in Googlemobiles, using traffic directions from... Google.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  That's not a monopoly - a monopoly would be if for at minimum one of those things, you could only find a Google-controlled version.
  - Clubber 8y ago
    That's not true, but it's close; at least according to US law. Microsoft was deemed a monopoly in 2000 (which is actually legal) and abused it's monopolistic powers (which is not legal) while other OS's existed in the market: Apple, BeOS, Novell, Linux, OS/2, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
    - 1123581321 8y ago
      As you know, Microsoft had more than 90% of the OS market worldwide. While other OSes did exist, they didn’t provide meaningful competition. The person to which you replied meant that Google Milk is only a problem if Google abuses its search monopoly to push the market away from other milk vendors, not that Google isn’t a monopoly as long as another search engine exists. Their main point was that it isn’t abusing a monopoly to launch a broad array of products if each of those products compete in a fair market.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - osrec 8y ago
    I think it is monopolistic. If one company has so much influence in your life that they can direct you to their own products, so that you habitually start relying on them for almost anything, then they have the ability to develop a wide range of monopolies by influencing your choices. E.g. Google has a monopoly as a trusted source of all information - what's even stranger, is that they are seen as a non-interfering third party by most users - because of this, many other monopolies can emerge, because they have the ability to control "truth" and "popular opinion".
    - delecti 8y ago
      By that logic, Walmart would already be a monopoly in the perception of quite a few people in America, which is clearly not the case to much of the rest of the country.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    For the legal notion of monopoly, you don't need to be the literal only one.
kennxl 8y ago
Definitely the political angle in most of these regulatory institutions is frustrating. And money in politics as an extension.
naravara 8y ago
It’s further complicated by the fact that a lot of this stuff functions more like a public utility than a line of business. It may well be that nationalizing the firm makes more sense than cracking it up.

osrec 8y ago

Yeah, I think regulators realise we have a monopoly brewing once they see people buying Google branded milk from Googlemarts, having driven there in Googlemobiles, using traffic directions from... Google.

whatshisface 8y ago
That's not a monopoly - a monopoly would be if for at minimum one of those things, you could only find a Google-controlled version.
- Clubber 8y ago
  That's not true, but it's close; at least according to US law. Microsoft was deemed a monopoly in 2000 (which is actually legal) and abused it's monopolistic powers (which is not legal) while other OS's existed in the market: Apple, BeOS, Novell, Linux, OS/2, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
  - 1123581321 8y ago
    As you know, Microsoft had more than 90% of the OS market worldwide. While other OSes did exist, they didn’t provide meaningful competition. The person to which you replied meant that Google Milk is only a problem if Google abuses its search monopoly to push the market away from other milk vendors, not that Google isn’t a monopoly as long as another search engine exists. Their main point was that it isn’t abusing a monopoly to launch a broad array of products if each of those products compete in a fair market.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- osrec 8y ago
  I think it is monopolistic. If one company has so much influence in your life that they can direct you to their own products, so that you habitually start relying on them for almost anything, then they have the ability to develop a wide range of monopolies by influencing your choices. E.g. Google has a monopoly as a trusted source of all information - what's even stranger, is that they are seen as a non-interfering third party by most users - because of this, many other monopolies can emerge, because they have the ability to control "truth" and "popular opinion".
  - delecti 8y ago
    By that logic, Walmart would already be a monopoly in the perception of quite a few people in America, which is clearly not the case to much of the rest of the country.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  For the legal notion of monopoly, you don't need to be the literal only one.

kennxl 8y ago

Definitely the political angle in most of these regulatory institutions is frustrating. And money in politics as an extension.

naravara 8y ago

It’s further complicated by the fact that a lot of this stuff functions more like a public utility than a line of business. It may well be that nationalizing the firm makes more sense than cracking it up.