3 ms·

I'm assuming you're asking in good faith, so I'll point out three problems with your line of thought. First, you assume that having multiple competitors is poi

I'm assuming you're asking in good faith, so I'll point out three problems with your line of thought. First, you assume that having multiple competitors is pointless if one product is the clear winner. Proponents of breaking up tech giants would argue that Twitter and Facebook are not actually very good products right now, and the reason they're popular is largely due to network effects and anticompetitive behavior, not innovation. They would argue that even if breaking up Twitter just resulted in 2nd-best Twitter, the existence of competition would force the original Twitter to innovate at a faster pace than it's moving right now. Second, you assume that there would be a clear "best" product. In truly competitive fields, it's often difficult to point to one product and say, "that's the best, and everyone else is settling for a worse product." Take iPhone and Android. Why does anyone use the 2nd best phone operating system? Why don't we have one OS? Because there isn't a clear 2nd best operating system. The products are good for different things, and fit different niches and use-cases. It seems obvious to me that the smartphone market is broad enough that other niches could be served better by more targeted alternatives to the two major OSes, if those alternatives were allowed to mature to the point where they became competitive. Finally, you misunderstand what the proposals about breaking up tech companies often entail. Most commonly when people talk about breaking up big-tech, I find they're talking about Warren. Warren's proposals are (roughly speaking) about separating product offerings and platforms. Her plan isn't to take Apple and force them to split up and create a second iOS. Her plan is to split Apple so that the company controlling the iOS App Store isn't the same company selling software on that store. It's not about blindly making a second Apple, it's about trying to remove conflicts of interest from platform maintainers. I'm not going to say whether or not I think that plan is good. I do think it's pretty unlikely to happen even if Warren is elected. But regardless, it's a very different, much narrower plan with very different goals and implications than what you're describing.

true_religion 7y ago
The break up Facebook plan isn’t going to end with two facebooks. They aren’t a phone company. They may be required to provide interoperability with other networks. This kind of federation is what tech people claim is what makes the internet good. Then there is the question of if all their sub companies need to be under one banner. Must they own WhatsApp? Instagram? Seems like they don’t need to but just swallowed up competitors.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Exactly. Whether or not you think that Facebook is a monopoly, none of the Democratic candidates (or at least, none of the candidates that are serious) are talking about making a bunch of Facebook clones. They're talking about reversing mergers that many people claim were problematic (WhatsApp and Instagram). They're talking about forcing companies to give up the benefit of 1st-party access to the platforms they maintain. That's a much more narrow, targeted change than saying, "let's just make another Facebook", which is what I see people interpreting it as.
root_axis 7y ago
> Proponents of breaking up tech giants would argue that Twitter and Facebook are not actually very good products right now Based on what criterion? > reason they're popular is largely due to network effects and anticompetitive behavior, not innovation Can you give any examples of anticompetitive behavior exhibited by social media companies? > the existence of competition would force the original Twitter to innovate at a faster pace than it's moving right now If the "original" twitter kept the twitter brand and domain, absolutely nothing would change since that would be the equivalent of the status quo. It's not as if it's technically difficult to create a product similar to twitter, thus any attempt to break up big tech companies would mandate the retirement of the incumbent domain and brand. How would this be implemented practically? Also, what happens to all the user PII? Does it just get copied over to a new corporate entity which in effect doubles the risk of the data being hacked or leaked? On a more speculative note, I am not sure if it is a given that "innovation" in the realm of social media is necessarily a good thing for the consumer, especially considering that the barometer for social media success is engagement. Social media "innovation" inevitably means "getting more people to look at ads". > The products are good for different things, and fit different niches and use-cases Right, but those products exist because they serve a niche in the market, simply breaking up companies doesn't create a niche. > Her plan is to split Apple so that the company controlling the iOS App Store isn't the same company selling software on that store. How would this work? Would Valve be allowed to sell 1st party software on Steam? Would Google be allowed to sell their software on the play store? It seems pretty impractical to prohibit a company from selling their own products on a platform they own.
- harimau777 7y ago
  In regards to your last point: My understanding is that, for example, Valve might be broken up into two companies: - Valve: Produces video games such as Half Life, TF2, and Portal - Steam: Sells video games If Steam then sold Half Life 3, it would no longer be 1st party software because it is made by Valve not Steam. Granted, that will never happen because Valve will never make Half Life 3. -_-
  - heartbreak 7y ago

true_religion 7y ago

The break up Facebook plan isn’t going to end with two facebooks. They aren’t a phone company. They may be required to provide interoperability with other networks. This kind of federation is what tech people claim is what makes the internet good. Then there is the question of if all their sub companies need to be under one banner. Must they own WhatsApp? Instagram? Seems like they don’t need to but just swallowed up competitors.

danShumway 7y ago
Exactly. Whether or not you think that Facebook is a monopoly, none of the Democratic candidates (or at least, none of the candidates that are serious) are talking about making a bunch of Facebook clones. They're talking about reversing mergers that many people claim were problematic (WhatsApp and Instagram). They're talking about forcing companies to give up the benefit of 1st-party access to the platforms they maintain. That's a much more narrow, targeted change than saying, "let's just make another Facebook", which is what I see people interpreting it as.

root_axis 7y ago

> Proponents of breaking up tech giants would argue that Twitter and Facebook are not actually very good products right now Based on what criterion? > reason they're popular is largely due to network effects and anticompetitive behavior, not innovation Can you give any examples of anticompetitive behavior exhibited by social media companies? > the existence of competition would force the original Twitter to innovate at a faster pace than it's moving right now If the "original" twitter kept the twitter brand and domain, absolutely nothing would change since that would be the equivalent of the status quo. It's not as if it's technically difficult to create a product similar to twitter, thus any attempt to break up big tech companies would mandate the retirement of the incumbent domain and brand. How would this be implemented practically? Also, what happens to all the user PII? Does it just get copied over to a new corporate entity which in effect doubles the risk of the data being hacked or leaked? On a more speculative note, I am not sure if it is a given that "innovation" in the realm of social media is necessarily a good thing for the consumer, especially considering that the barometer for social media success is engagement. Social media "innovation" inevitably means "getting more people to look at ads". > The products are good for different things, and fit different niches and use-cases Right, but those products exist because they serve a niche in the market, simply breaking up companies doesn't create a niche. > Her plan is to split Apple so that the company controlling the iOS App Store isn't the same company selling software on that store. How would this work? Would Valve be allowed to sell 1st party software on Steam? Would Google be allowed to sell their software on the play store? It seems pretty impractical to prohibit a company from selling their own products on a platform they own.

harimau777 7y ago
In regards to your last point: My understanding is that, for example, Valve might be broken up into two companies: - Valve: Produces video games such as Half Life, TF2, and Portal - Steam: Sells video games If Steam then sold Half Life 3, it would no longer be 1st party software because it is made by Valve not Steam. Granted, that will never happen because Valve will never make Half Life 3. -_-
- heartbreak 7y ago