8 ms·

Exactly, so, not a monopoly in ecommerce. And only a single-digit share of commerce. And, of course, there is literally nothing inherently illegal (in the US,

by sib 8y ago

Exactly, so, not a monopoly in ecommerce. And only a single-digit share of commerce. And, of course, there is literally nothing inherently illegal (in the US, at least) about building a monopoly in any case.

oflannabhra 8y ago
I'm not so sure we should be heralding the fact that a single company has not captured all of commerce as a win for competition.
- scarface74 8y ago
  And it “captured it” because of the incompetence of the previous incumbents in retail - Barnes and Noble, Toys R Us, Tower Records, Walmart, etc. Why should the government punish companies because they were able to disrupt incumbents? Should we also punish Apple because RIM and Palm couldn’t compete?
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    You seem to be arguing for a winner-take-all approach to the market. Should future competitors to [monopolistic entity] be punished because [previous competitors] were unable to effectively compete? In any case, I don't think punishment is really an apt metaphor for breaking apart a monopoly.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? Every company I named was once dominant. Even Spotify came out of nowhere and made the once dominance iTunes Music Store basically irrelevant without government intervention. It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today.
      - cgriswald 8y ago
        > So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? > It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today. The criticisms of Microsoft weren't that it was preventing Apple from selling computers; but that it was using it's monopoly in the operating system to prevent competition against its other software. > Even Spotify came out of nowhere and made the once dominance iTunes Music Store basically irrelevant without government intervention. And if Apple decided Spotify could not be on the App Store, how would Spotify do then? (Nevermind we're ignoring the "Apple tax".)
        scarface74 8y ago
        Spotify doesn’t pay an “Apple Tax”. You can’t subscribe to Spotify within the App store.
        cgriswald 8y ago
        > Spotify doesn’t pay an “Apple Tax”. You can’t subscribe to Spotify within the App store. Spotfy is an example. Plenty of Apps do pay the "Apple tax." I'd get into the complexity of how the "Apple tax" affects Spotify even though it doesn't pay it, but you seem to have already made up your mind about all this regardless of the facts.
        scarface74 8y ago
        You mean companies have to pay to be a part of a marketplace? Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And you act as if most revenue from online stores is not coming from in app purchases of consumable goods.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. Because retail stores have to provide shelf space with real estate cost, unsold inventory cost, etc. How much is that cost to Apple? > It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And it costs 0% to be distributed in a Linux package manager. Possibly something to do with Verizon having the same sort of app monopoly over its device customers that Apple does.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - hjk05 8y ago
      Amazon is not a monopoly... monopoly does not mean “successfull company I son’t like”
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    It wasn’t only that. Amazon also avoided sales tax for the longest time, while all those brick and mortar stores had to pass that fee to the customer, immediately making it appear less price competitive on top of the added cost of running a physical store.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      The brick and mortar stores could have easily started another company that was only online. But as far as being uncompetitive because of a previous business model is the entire premise of the “Innovator’s Dilemma”. It’s not the governments responsibility to protect old business models.
jopsen 8y ago
Monopoly or not isn't necessarily the question... In the EU the issue often seems to be abuse of market position. If Facebook were to lock Apple users out of new critically important Instagram filters because they wanted to sell the FacePhone. One could argue that they shouldn't be allowed to abuse their market position in social media to make unfair inroads in the phone market. IMO, these things are hard to regulate, and most of our walled gardens are surprisingly interoperable :)
baddox 8y ago
> there is literally nothing inherently illegal (in the US, at least) about building a monopoly in any case. This is not true, despite being repeated extremely often. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa
- jforman 8y ago
  Huh, that ruling was pretty broad. Only pertains to the 2nd circuit as it wasn't reviewed by SCOTUS, but still. Do you know if it was a key cite in cases in other circuits?
  - baddox 8y ago
    I don't have a good citation, but my impression is that the Alcoa case was quite influential, and significantly expanded the power of antitrust law in practice.

by sib 8y ago

oflannabhra 8y ago

I'm not so sure we should be heralding the fact that a single company has not captured all of commerce as a win for competition.

scarface74 8y ago
And it “captured it” because of the incompetence of the previous incumbents in retail - Barnes and Noble, Toys R Us, Tower Records, Walmart, etc. Why should the government punish companies because they were able to disrupt incumbents? Should we also punish Apple because RIM and Palm couldn’t compete?
- cgriswald 8y ago
  You seem to be arguing for a winner-take-all approach to the market. Should future competitors to [monopolistic entity] be punished because [previous competitors] were unable to effectively compete? In any case, I don't think punishment is really an apt metaphor for breaking apart a monopoly.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? Every company I named was once dominant. Even Spotify came out of nowhere and made the once dominance iTunes Music Store basically irrelevant without government intervention. It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today.
    - cgriswald 8y ago
      > So back in 1999 people thought that Microsoft would be dominant forever - how did that work out? > It wasn’t government intervention that caused the once The Beleaguered Computer Company that was about to be crushed by MS what it is today. The criticisms of Microsoft weren't that it was preventing Apple from selling computers; but that it was using it's monopoly in the operating system to prevent competition against its other software. > Even Spotify came out of nowhere and made the once dominance iTunes Music Store basically irrelevant without government intervention. And if Apple decided Spotify could not be on the App Store, how would Spotify do then? (Nevermind we're ignoring the "Apple tax".)
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Spotify doesn’t pay an “Apple Tax”. You can’t subscribe to Spotify within the App store.
        cgriswald 8y ago
        > Spotify doesn’t pay an “Apple Tax”. You can’t subscribe to Spotify within the App store. Spotfy is an example. Plenty of Apps do pay the "Apple tax." I'd get into the complexity of how the "Apple tax" affects Spotify even though it doesn't pay it, but you seem to have already made up your mind about all this regardless of the facts.
        scarface74 8y ago
        You mean companies have to pay to be a part of a marketplace? Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And you act as if most revenue from online stores is not coming from in app purchases of consumable goods.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. Because retail stores have to provide shelf space with real estate cost, unsold inventory cost, etc. How much is that cost to Apple? > It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And it costs 0% to be distributed in a Linux package manager. Possibly something to do with Verizon having the same sort of app monopoly over its device customers that Apple does.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - hjk05 8y ago
    Amazon is not a monopoly... monopoly does not mean “successfull company I son’t like”
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  It wasn’t only that. Amazon also avoided sales tax for the longest time, while all those brick and mortar stores had to pass that fee to the customer, immediately making it appear less price competitive on top of the added cost of running a physical store.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    The brick and mortar stores could have easily started another company that was only online. But as far as being uncompetitive because of a previous business model is the entire premise of the “Innovator’s Dilemma”. It’s not the governments responsibility to protect old business models.

jopsen 8y ago

Monopoly or not isn't necessarily the question... In the EU the issue often seems to be abuse of market position. If Facebook were to lock Apple users out of new critically important Instagram filters because they wanted to sell the FacePhone. One could argue that they shouldn't be allowed to abuse their market position in social media to make unfair inroads in the phone market. IMO, these things are hard to regulate, and most of our walled gardens are surprisingly interoperable :)

baddox 8y ago

> there is literally nothing inherently illegal (in the US, at least) about building a monopoly in any case. This is not true, despite being repeated extremely often. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

jforman 8y ago
Huh, that ruling was pretty broad. Only pertains to the 2nd circuit as it wasn't reviewed by SCOTUS, but still. Do you know if it was a key cite in cases in other circuits?
- baddox 8y ago
  I don't have a good citation, but my impression is that the Alcoa case was quite influential, and significantly expanded the power of antitrust law in practice.