3 ms·
This is so uncreative. Besides conveniently forgetting how Twitter starved out its third party apps with breaking API changes, and Amazon's similar strong armin
by dluan 7y ago
This is so uncreative. Besides conveniently forgetting how Twitter starved out its third party apps with breaking API changes, and Amazon's similar strong arming of smaller vendors and services, he doesn't seem to understand why that is bad.
Breaking up a company is to address a singular problem - that there are too many interests being held under one roof. By breaking up, you are addressing a need for broader governance and ownership that "opening up" doesn't allow for. Let Whole Foods sell groceries, and let Twitch stream games.
- codesushi42 7y agoExactly. What a feeble and unabashed attempt by Fred Wilson to shield his investments and SV buddies. The fourth amendment is such a 1776 solution, it is 2019 already and time to move on. Cringe Breaking up monopolies is not an idea that's stuck in the 19th and 20th centuries. It's an idea stuck in reality and reason, and it has a history of working. Many times it is the simplest and most obvious solution that is best.
- rwmj 7y agoI'm assuming that he means the companies would be ordered by the force of court rulings and the law to supply the third parties equally and without prejudice. A similar thing has happened in the UK with telecoms. The monopoly supplier of the phone network is gradually being split into a company which owns the wires in the ground but cannot offer services, and competing companies that rent the wires to provide services, the rental being at an open, non-discriminatory price. At least to some degree it works well (although the regulator needs a lot more teeth).