9 ms·

This conversation has been going on for a little while already. Elizabeth Warren directly addresses proprietary markets (i.e. participating in you own) in her p

This conversation has been going on for a little while already. Elizabeth Warren directly addresses proprietary markets (i.e. participating in you own) in her plan to break up big tech companies[0]. Her argument essentially boils down to either participating in someone else's marketplace to sell goods, or running your own marketplace without being able to transact within it, but preventing the ability to run and participate within a single market. 0: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...

Tyr42 7y ago
Which means steam couldn't be created now, which is a little disappointing
- save_ferris 7y ago
  Not true, theoretically they'd just have to sell their own products on another marketplace.
  - jimbob45 7y ago
    Or offer them at a discount with little to no advertising, which is basically what they did with Orange Box.
    - jrkatz 7y ago
      Or split into steam-the-platform-the-company and valve-the-games-company - and if that happens I predict half life 3 really will follow.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    They'd divest the resources into Apple Apps Co., which would then be a Apple preferred partner on the app store.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  It's problematic because nearly every platform either grows out of an application or needs its sponsor to build the initial suite of applications on the platform. You can't get past the chicken & egg problem otherwise - platforms aren't useful without applications, marketplaces aren't useful without participants, and nobody wants to bother with a platform or marketplace that isn't useful. This is pretty easily worked around with a revenue threshold, though. If you own a marketplace where $25 is transacted annually and you want to participate in it, go for it. If you own a marketplace where $25B is transacted annually and you want to participate in it, there're some problems with that. This is already part of Warren's plan.
  - granos 7y ago
    It somehow feels wrong to tell Apple that they can't sell Apps in their own App Store.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      ...which shows how ingrained the idea of oligopoly & big business is in the U.S. There's nothing inherently wrong with forcing Apple to divest their in-house apps. They did it before, when they spun out Claris in 1987. Likely, it would lead to better competitors within those markets than we have now; there was a renaissance in Mac office software after Claris was formed, which unfortunately Microsoft won. Perhaps if Microsoft had also been forbidden from building apps for their own platform, we would still have functioning word processing and spreadsheet markets. (Though remembering this time period, I can think of another problem: file formats. Having a choice between MacWrite, WordPerfect, Ami, and Microsoft Word was great. Having to share your MacWrite files with someone using Ami was miserable.)
      - smallbigfish 7y ago
        We had a good "word processing and spreadsheet market". But somehow people and companies voted with their money for Microsoft.
kortilla 7y ago
So basically all grocery stores that sell their own branded stuff as well are blocked?
- drenvuk 7y ago
  Not sure why this is voted down. Amazon is just doing a scaled up version of what Walmart, Price Chopper, Trader Joe's and various other supermarkets have done for decades. Why should Steam and Amazon be barred from doing it if others aren't?
  - jerrycruncher 7y ago
    No they're not. All of the grocery stores are engaging in "white-labeling" - buying products from other manufacturers and putting their own label on them. It would maybe be a valid comparison if Price Chopper took in 50% of all grocery dollars spent in the US, saw what was popular, cloned those products in house and then used the top 80% of shelf space to prominently display their product, and moved the third party competitors to the very bottom shelf. Additionally, Trader Joes ONLY sells white-labelled products, so it is even less applicable than your other examples.
    - drenvuk 7y ago
      Thanks for letting me know.
    - another 7y ago
      > Additionally, Trader Joes ONLY sells white-labelled products, so it is even less applicable... Their mix is heavily skewed toward private-label products, but "ONLY" is not accurate. To pick one example: they sell name-brand beer alongside their private labels.
      - jerrycruncher 7y ago
        Fair enough. They also don't slap a Trader Joes marque on the produce they resell.
cobookman 7y ago
Companies can easily get around this. Instead of Facebook opening the Bank. It'll be zuck first banking national forms a partnership with Facebook Inc. Accomplishing the same things. Only accomplishment will be that it's harder for the two companies to share their point datasets. Albeit, not impossible.
- valenciarose 7y ago
  It is not quite as easy as you suppose. The Bank Holding Company act of 1956 (as amended in 1970) places any company that owns 25% or more of a bank under the regulatory supervision of the Fed. The holding company rules for Broker/Dealers (investment banks and retail/institutional brokerages) are less airtight but not insignificant. I worked on Wall Street for years, many of the them on the business side. Fed supervision is no joke.
inlined 7y ago
This argument against vertical integration sounds a lot like United States v Paramount Pictures, inc [0], which forced Hollywood to end the vertical integration of the “studio system” [1]. Honestly, I’ve wondered if Apple has deferred manufacturing to Foxconn et. al. just to avoid being ruled a (vertical) monopoly with this precedent. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P.... [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system

Tyr42 7y ago

Which means steam couldn't be created now, which is a little disappointing

save_ferris 7y ago
Not true, theoretically they'd just have to sell their own products on another marketplace.
- jimbob45 7y ago
  Or offer them at a discount with little to no advertising, which is basically what they did with Orange Box.
  - jrkatz 7y ago
    Or split into steam-the-platform-the-company and valve-the-games-company - and if that happens I predict half life 3 really will follow.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  They'd divest the resources into Apple Apps Co., which would then be a Apple preferred partner on the app store.
nostrademons 7y ago
It's problematic because nearly every platform either grows out of an application or needs its sponsor to build the initial suite of applications on the platform. You can't get past the chicken & egg problem otherwise - platforms aren't useful without applications, marketplaces aren't useful without participants, and nobody wants to bother with a platform or marketplace that isn't useful. This is pretty easily worked around with a revenue threshold, though. If you own a marketplace where $25 is transacted annually and you want to participate in it, go for it. If you own a marketplace where $25B is transacted annually and you want to participate in it, there're some problems with that. This is already part of Warren's plan.
- granos 7y ago
  It somehow feels wrong to tell Apple that they can't sell Apps in their own App Store.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    ...which shows how ingrained the idea of oligopoly & big business is in the U.S. There's nothing inherently wrong with forcing Apple to divest their in-house apps. They did it before, when they spun out Claris in 1987. Likely, it would lead to better competitors within those markets than we have now; there was a renaissance in Mac office software after Claris was formed, which unfortunately Microsoft won. Perhaps if Microsoft had also been forbidden from building apps for their own platform, we would still have functioning word processing and spreadsheet markets. (Though remembering this time period, I can think of another problem: file formats. Having a choice between MacWrite, WordPerfect, Ami, and Microsoft Word was great. Having to share your MacWrite files with someone using Ami was miserable.)
    - smallbigfish 7y ago
      We had a good "word processing and spreadsheet market". But somehow people and companies voted with their money for Microsoft.

kortilla 7y ago

So basically all grocery stores that sell their own branded stuff as well are blocked?

drenvuk 7y ago
Not sure why this is voted down. Amazon is just doing a scaled up version of what Walmart, Price Chopper, Trader Joe's and various other supermarkets have done for decades. Why should Steam and Amazon be barred from doing it if others aren't?
- jerrycruncher 7y ago
  No they're not. All of the grocery stores are engaging in "white-labeling" - buying products from other manufacturers and putting their own label on them. It would maybe be a valid comparison if Price Chopper took in 50% of all grocery dollars spent in the US, saw what was popular, cloned those products in house and then used the top 80% of shelf space to prominently display their product, and moved the third party competitors to the very bottom shelf. Additionally, Trader Joes ONLY sells white-labelled products, so it is even less applicable than your other examples.
  - drenvuk 7y ago
    Thanks for letting me know.
  - another 7y ago
    > Additionally, Trader Joes ONLY sells white-labelled products, so it is even less applicable... Their mix is heavily skewed toward private-label products, but "ONLY" is not accurate. To pick one example: they sell name-brand beer alongside their private labels.
    - jerrycruncher 7y ago
      Fair enough. They also don't slap a Trader Joes marque on the produce they resell.

cobookman 7y ago

Companies can easily get around this. Instead of Facebook opening the Bank. It'll be zuck first banking national forms a partnership with Facebook Inc. Accomplishing the same things. Only accomplishment will be that it's harder for the two companies to share their point datasets. Albeit, not impossible.

valenciarose 7y ago
It is not quite as easy as you suppose. The Bank Holding Company act of 1956 (as amended in 1970) places any company that owns 25% or more of a bank under the regulatory supervision of the Fed. The holding company rules for Broker/Dealers (investment banks and retail/institutional brokerages) are less airtight but not insignificant. I worked on Wall Street for years, many of the them on the business side. Fed supervision is no joke.

inlined 7y ago

This argument against vertical integration sounds a lot like United States v Paramount Pictures, inc [0], which forced Hollywood to end the vertical integration of the “studio system” [1]. Honestly, I’ve wondered if Apple has deferred manufacturing to Foxconn et. al. just to avoid being ruled a (vertical) monopoly with this precedent. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P.... [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system