5 ms·
The author has written a lot about Amazon, how it gained power, both in that article and in others on that blog. He did not conveniently forget to mention it.
by hosh 8y ago
The author has written a lot about Amazon, how it gained power, both in that article and in others on that blog. He did not conveniently forget to mention it.
The article may seem like nitpicking the history of Bing and Google at the beginning of his article. However, if one were to read through the whole thing, he is showing how Warren is coming from an inadequate frame to make an effective policy. The author analyzes this from the Aggregation Theory he has been working on for years throughout other articles on his blog.
The biggest takeaway is that, the FAANG aggregators get their market power because consumers voluntarily use their product. While promoting competition can help a market, the current US standard for antitrust is around consumer welfare, and modern-day aggregators do no meet that standard. The concern here is that developing antitrust policies without addressing these deeper concerns will not solve the problem (dominant companies that grow increasingly more dominant over time), and may end up exacerbating it.
- chj 8y agoWarren's Amazon coffee maker argument is pretty convincing, but the author focuses on the history of bing and google, that's a big turn off. Shouldn't the author come from the perspective "Where Warren's Right" if the author's "Aggregation Theory", which I am not familiar with, happens to have the same spirit of Warren's proposal? Is it reasonable that since Warren made a mistake about bing and google, therefore she's inadequate for coming up with a policy? To be honest with you, I didn't read the whole thing. Instead of spending many screens of texts in the beginning to show how Warren's wrong, the author could instead promote his own theory right at the start, then we will have a better idea where he's coming from. Right now, from the structure of his writing, it feels nitpicking.
- hosh 8y agoThe author perhaps, should have lead with (paraphrased) "Warren raised this as a discussion, and that is a good thing." He wrote that towards the end. However, according to (what I understand) as the author's frame, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the tech companies gained power and market dominance. The nitty gritty details about Bing and Google was meant to demonstrate that. Also keep in mind: this author has been writing a blog related to Aggregation Theory for a long time. Years before Warren had raised this issue to the nation. He had analyzed each of the FAANG companies, including Amazon, in depth. Many of his readers would already be familiar with Aggregation Theory. The key insight here is that the FAANG companies are not like the monopolies of the old. These are probably a better introduction: https://stratechery.com/2016/the-amazon-tax/ https://stratechery.com/2016/the-amazon-tax/ https://stratechery.com/2017/amazons-new-customer/ https://stratechery.com/2017/amazons-new-customer/