5 ms·

Good. FB's practice of "buy anyone who looks like they might become a competitor" combined with its inherent dark patterns needs to be investigated. I'm now w

Good. FB's practice of "buy anyone who looks like they might become a competitor" combined with its inherent dark patterns needs to be investigated. I'm now waiting for an announcement regarding Amazon, which would round out the list.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
I don't think American anti-trust law makes any provisions for buying out potential future competitors.
- kypro 7y ago
  And how would this tackle the problem that these tech companies trend towards monopolies? It doesn't really solve anything. You're never going to have 5 social networks with fairly equal market share because the value of a social network comes from the fact that everyone uses it. I think what we need is regulation to ensure these companies use their power responsibly and operate in the interest of the public first.
- tastygreenapple 7y ago
  Not directly but consumer welfare is the central concern of American anti-trust laws, buying out a competitor would presumably be blocked if the post-transaction firm would have greater power over consumers. IIRC, the sprint/t mobile deal was blocked because the resultant firm would probably have been in a situation where it could have harmed consumer welfare. on the other hand, the Bush and Obama regulators didn't stop any of the airline or tech consolidation so who knows how much that regulatory body is captured.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    yes you're right, didn't think about that. Things might look different now if Facebook had been blocked from acquiring Instagram.
perpetualpatzer 7y ago
Out of fairness, the DoJ reviewed both the Instagram [0] and WhatsApp [1] acquisitions for competitive impact prior to acquisition completion as is generally required for deals of this size [2]. It's not like the DoJ has been waiting on the sidelines unable to stop Facebook from buying smaller companies. They looked at it and concluded it wasn't an issue. Remember: the Instagram acquisition came ~1 yr after Google+ was launched and everyone was sure that Facebook was toast. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-closes-its-investigation-facebooks-proposed-acquisition https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-c... [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-notifies-facebook-whatsapp-privacy-obligations-light-proposed https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-n... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-program/hsr-resources/steps-determining-whether-hsr-filing https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-progr...
- mtgx 7y ago
  That doesn't say much considering we've been living in an era of tons of corporate consolidation/no antitrust actions whatsoever. Honestly, I think the vast majority of $1+ billion acquisitions should be rejected by default. I think in almost all such cases it involves one large incumbent buying out the competition = terrible for consumers. If companies have $1+ billion to buy out other companies they should also have the money to create their own competitor to that company that is worth $1+ billion and they are trying to buy. And that would be much better for the consumer, too, as it would lead to more competition/faster rate of improvement for products.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > Google+ was launched and everyone was sure that Facebook was toast. I think that was just your bubble :) The media coverage was decided lukewarm, with "10 Reasons Facebook Will Wipe The Floor With Google+" (business insider), "Why Google+ can never compete with Facebook" (NetworkWorld), "Why Google+ won't hurt Facebook" (Gigaom). Slate actually declared "Google+ Is Dead" in November 2011(!)
  - perpetualpatzer 7y ago
JohnJay33 7y ago
Facebook’s acquisitions were ridiculed by most people at the time. They look like antitrust issues now because they were successfully integrated, something that was not guaranteed.
- leeoniya 7y ago
  > Facebook’s acquisitions were ridiculed by most people at the time. by whom, exactly? FB acquired companies with massive userbases and networks. Instagram is social, WhatsApp is communication. in fact, most of these make sense to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... Oculus is a bit more questionable to me from an integration perspective.
  - flunhat 7y ago
    By the members of this site, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817850 A choice quote from the top comment: "Seems like mostly a huge waste of cash."
    - throwaway713 7y ago
      Comparing the comments then and now is hilarious. It’s amazing how quickly people forget things.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  The acquisitions were ridiculed mostly for their price, not for the logic behind them or for the additions to the userbase.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    I don't know about the others, but Instagram's price tag was a tactic tied to raising hype with the public around FB's upcoming IPO - and it worked.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

I don't think American anti-trust law makes any provisions for buying out potential future competitors.

kypro 7y ago
And how would this tackle the problem that these tech companies trend towards monopolies? It doesn't really solve anything. You're never going to have 5 social networks with fairly equal market share because the value of a social network comes from the fact that everyone uses it. I think what we need is regulation to ensure these companies use their power responsibly and operate in the interest of the public first.
tastygreenapple 7y ago
Not directly but consumer welfare is the central concern of American anti-trust laws, buying out a competitor would presumably be blocked if the post-transaction firm would have greater power over consumers. IIRC, the sprint/t mobile deal was blocked because the resultant firm would probably have been in a situation where it could have harmed consumer welfare. on the other hand, the Bush and Obama regulators didn't stop any of the airline or tech consolidation so who knows how much that regulatory body is captured.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  yes you're right, didn't think about that. Things might look different now if Facebook had been blocked from acquiring Instagram.

perpetualpatzer 7y ago

Out of fairness, the DoJ reviewed both the Instagram [0] and WhatsApp [1] acquisitions for competitive impact prior to acquisition completion as is generally required for deals of this size [2]. It's not like the DoJ has been waiting on the sidelines unable to stop Facebook from buying smaller companies. They looked at it and concluded it wasn't an issue. Remember: the Instagram acquisition came ~1 yr after Google+ was launched and everyone was sure that Facebook was toast. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-closes-its-investigation-facebooks-proposed-acquisition https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-c... [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-notifies-facebook-whatsapp-privacy-obligations-light-proposed https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-n... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-program/hsr-resources/steps-determining-whether-hsr-filing https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-progr...

mtgx 7y ago
That doesn't say much considering we've been living in an era of tons of corporate consolidation/no antitrust actions whatsoever. Honestly, I think the vast majority of $1+ billion acquisitions should be rejected by default. I think in almost all such cases it involves one large incumbent buying out the competition = terrible for consumers. If companies have $1+ billion to buy out other companies they should also have the money to create their own competitor to that company that is worth $1+ billion and they are trying to buy. And that would be much better for the consumer, too, as it would lead to more competition/faster rate of improvement for products.
icebraining 7y ago
> Google+ was launched and everyone was sure that Facebook was toast. I think that was just your bubble :) The media coverage was decided lukewarm, with "10 Reasons Facebook Will Wipe The Floor With Google+" (business insider), "Why Google+ can never compete with Facebook" (NetworkWorld), "Why Google+ won't hurt Facebook" (Gigaom). Slate actually declared "Google+ Is Dead" in November 2011(!)
- perpetualpatzer 7y ago

JohnJay33 7y ago

Facebook’s acquisitions were ridiculed by most people at the time. They look like antitrust issues now because they were successfully integrated, something that was not guaranteed.

leeoniya 7y ago
> Facebook’s acquisitions were ridiculed by most people at the time. by whom, exactly? FB acquired companies with massive userbases and networks. Instagram is social, WhatsApp is communication. in fact, most of these make sense to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... Oculus is a bit more questionable to me from an integration perspective.
- flunhat 7y ago
  By the members of this site, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817850 A choice quote from the top comment: "Seems like mostly a huge waste of cash."
  - throwaway713 7y ago
    Comparing the comments then and now is hilarious. It’s amazing how quickly people forget things.
mdorazio 7y ago
The acquisitions were ridiculed mostly for their price, not for the logic behind them or for the additions to the userbase.
- bduerst 7y ago
  I don't know about the others, but Instagram's price tag was a tactic tied to raising hype with the public around FB's upcoming IPO - and it worked.