3 ms·
For Apple specifically, I'm not sure which products you're referring to, but Apple does wield a lot of monopolistic power. And maybe some acquisitions there mad
by Ozzie_osman 7y ago
For Apple specifically, I'm not sure which products you're referring to, but Apple does wield a lot of monopolistic power. And maybe some acquisitions there made sense, but there could have been alternative paths (for instance, maybe if some of those companies had stayed independent, they would have been integrated into Apple as well as other manufacturers via a different business model, like licensing, being part of the supply chain, etc). In general, a viable product should lead to a viable business, since the company making the product should be able to capture the value it's delivering... but yes, there are some exceptions where you need products to be really tightly integrated and acquisitions make sense. In fact, I'd argue that with _less_ M&A we'd be more likely to live in a world where (viable product) == (viable company), because the market would be more efficient.
Anyway, my argument for more regulatory oversight doesn't depend on ALL acquisitions being bad, so finding evidence that some were good for consumers doesn't necessarily negate it.
I feel like what we would end up disagreeing on though is whether we can trust regulatory oversight to do a good job of making that decision. I don't trust regulation in general, but in this case specifically, I'd trust it more than giving large companies free reign.
- scarface74 7y agoHere is the list I was referring to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... Just some examples Next, SoundJam (iTunes), PA Semi (processors), AuthenTec (finger print sensor), Apple Music (Beats), Siri, etc. Knowing Apple what is more likely, they would license tech or just create it in house? How do smaller companies prevent that? Patent trolling? What if the companies wanted to be acquired by Apple? Does the government step in and say you aren’t allowed to sell your business? Instead of acquiring the company what’s to stop Apple from doing an acqui-hire? Are you going to tell them they can’t work for Apple? Government intervention in businesses unless there is a severe negative externality is almost universally bad.
- Ozzie_osman 7y agoMonopolies, like externalities, are a huge source of market failure. Though ironically sometimes the solution to negative externalities is a (regulated) monopoly.
- scarface74 7y agoSo now we are suppose to discourage companies from getting big? Everytine a company gets big do we really want the government to step in? Do your trust your government? Wouid you trust your government if it was the “other” party? It amazes me that people on HN willingly want to give up their agency to the government.
- Ozzie_osman 7y agoHuh? Where did anyone say anything about companies getting big? At this case you're just making strawman arguments. What I (and I think others) are against is anti-competitive behavior. I don't trust the government a whole lot (even my party) but I trust it more than I would a company behaving monopolistically.
- scarface74 7y agoBy HN standards, Apple (with a 40% market share) and Amazon (10% of all retail sales) is a monopoly. The difference is that the government has the power of law to compel me to do something. A company doesn’t. Given that choice, a government with less power is better.