3 ms·

Snapchat refused to sell, and Facebook pushed 3 different Snapchat competitors at the same time as a result, none of which were a success on their own - but whi

Snapchat refused to sell, and Facebook pushed 3 different Snapchat competitors at the same time as a result, none of which were a success on their own - but which did make a significant dent in Snapchats growth. This is a “I’ll push you out of the market by taking a loss” behavior, similar to MS inclusion of IE in Windows. Whether or not NS or SC was/is a good product is irrelevant. This is the behavior that antitrust legislation is supposed to stop. The law iirc does not require that prices increase directly; rather that customers be harmed (of which price increase is a possible expression) The customers in this case are advertisers, and they are definitely harmed - there are now two online advertising venues, Google and Facebook, both making outsized profits because they are the only two games in town. (Which on its own is NOT illegal - but using dominant position to maintain it, as Facebook has done with e.g. Onavo, instagram, Snapchat) is anticompetetive.

scarface74 6y ago
Snapchat refused to sell, and Facebook pushed 3 different Snapchat competitors at the same time as a result, none of which were a success on their own - but which did make a significant dent in Snapchats growth. So FB pushed an offering that consumers didn’t want and it wasn’t successful - all of this without government intervention.
- beagle3 6y ago
  It didn't have to be successful to harm Snapchat (which it arguably did), and that's exactly the problem: Facebook put out, at roughly the same time, 3 products competing with Snapchat and among themselves. You can surely weasel out some explanation for this product strategy that does not include "suffocating Snapchat", but neither Facebook nor any other company that I'm aware of has done anything similar[0]. And the only reasonable reason Facebook will do that, and can afford to, is its monopoly -- the use of which to further itself is likely an antitrust violation. [0] Apple regularly does multiple competing products - but they are all internal. Only the "winner" is put on the market.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Facebook put out, at roughly the same time, 3 products competing with Snapchat and among themselves. See Google chat/messages apps. For that matter Microsoft runs Teams, Skype, and GroupMe.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      Google is also a monopolist, and so is Microsoft, and both of them are abusing their monopoly position in one market to try to get into others. Made my point for me. But Facebook did 3 within 6 months after Snapchat refused a buyout offer. That's very different from Google (trying multiple over years to see what/if sticks) and Microsoft (trying multiple over years for different market segments and/or NSA requested purchase). Yes, all 3 are monopolists, MS almost got broken down for abusing theirs. What are you trying to say?
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So now a monopolists are everywhere? When is someone going to tell the FTC? And in the example above. Both Google and Microsoft are “monopolies” but they each have viable competitors....
        beagle3 6y ago
        Google are already being investigated for antitrust violations in both the US and Europe at the very second. Amazon and Apple likely will be very soon, if headlines are to be believed. Microsoft was found to abuse its monopoly before. Someone apparently told the FTC and the European authority.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Let’s see how far that gets. We see how little it did for Microsoft. Microsoft is still just as dominant in PC operating systems and Office software as it was in 2000 and is still one of the top 5 most valuable companies - as it was 20 years ago.
stale2002 6y ago
I don't consider FB releasing more products to be bad for consumers. And consumers are really the only thing I care about.
- beagle3 6y ago
  Microsoft’s release of IE was horrible for customers and likely set the web back 5-10 years. You might not have witnessed the damage that the “free” “competitive” IE 6 caused, but I assure you it was a lot of damage both directly to consumers and indirectly through the direct costs to developers. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t benefit them, and as a rent extracting monopolist, it’s always at the expense of the rest of society. You might not see it if you don’t look while it’s happening. Ask someone who lived through the IE times.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Regardless, in the modern era, I don't see how any of the free products that FB has released have been bad for society, for the mere reason of them being free. I hope more companies release free products. As many as possible. Basically all internet products are free, in the modern era. This is not some crazy, extreme thing. Because it is what literally almost every internet products does.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      Nothing is free. Society at large, and possibly you, are paying in ways that are not well understood by most - with your concentration, mental well being[0]; as well as sucking the air out of innovation and lots of funding -- a lot of FB income is VC money channeled through startups' advertising budget. If I understand your position correctly, you are fine with it. I'm not. We can agree to disagree. [0] Facebook had an experiment where they showed only sad news to some people, only happy news to others, and tracked the resulting mood which was affected.

scarface74 6y ago

Snapchat refused to sell, and Facebook pushed 3 different Snapchat competitors at the same time as a result, none of which were a success on their own - but which did make a significant dent in Snapchats growth. So FB pushed an offering that consumers didn’t want and it wasn’t successful - all of this without government intervention.

beagle3 6y ago
It didn't have to be successful to harm Snapchat (which it arguably did), and that's exactly the problem: Facebook put out, at roughly the same time, 3 products competing with Snapchat and among themselves. You can surely weasel out some explanation for this product strategy that does not include "suffocating Snapchat", but neither Facebook nor any other company that I'm aware of has done anything similar[0]. And the only reasonable reason Facebook will do that, and can afford to, is its monopoly -- the use of which to further itself is likely an antitrust violation. [0] Apple regularly does multiple competing products - but they are all internal. Only the "winner" is put on the market.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Facebook put out, at roughly the same time, 3 products competing with Snapchat and among themselves. See Google chat/messages apps. For that matter Microsoft runs Teams, Skype, and GroupMe.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    Google is also a monopolist, and so is Microsoft, and both of them are abusing their monopoly position in one market to try to get into others. Made my point for me. But Facebook did 3 within 6 months after Snapchat refused a buyout offer. That's very different from Google (trying multiple over years to see what/if sticks) and Microsoft (trying multiple over years for different market segments and/or NSA requested purchase). Yes, all 3 are monopolists, MS almost got broken down for abusing theirs. What are you trying to say?
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So now a monopolists are everywhere? When is someone going to tell the FTC? And in the example above. Both Google and Microsoft are “monopolies” but they each have viable competitors....
      - beagle3 6y ago
        Google are already being investigated for antitrust violations in both the US and Europe at the very second. Amazon and Apple likely will be very soon, if headlines are to be believed. Microsoft was found to abuse its monopoly before. Someone apparently told the FTC and the European authority.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Let’s see how far that gets. We see how little it did for Microsoft. Microsoft is still just as dominant in PC operating systems and Office software as it was in 2000 and is still one of the top 5 most valuable companies - as it was 20 years ago.

stale2002 6y ago

I don't consider FB releasing more products to be bad for consumers. And consumers are really the only thing I care about.

beagle3 6y ago
Microsoft’s release of IE was horrible for customers and likely set the web back 5-10 years. You might not have witnessed the damage that the “free” “competitive” IE 6 caused, but I assure you it was a lot of damage both directly to consumers and indirectly through the direct costs to developers. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t benefit them, and as a rent extracting monopolist, it’s always at the expense of the rest of society. You might not see it if you don’t look while it’s happening. Ask someone who lived through the IE times.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Regardless, in the modern era, I don't see how any of the free products that FB has released have been bad for society, for the mere reason of them being free. I hope more companies release free products. As many as possible. Basically all internet products are free, in the modern era. This is not some crazy, extreme thing. Because it is what literally almost every internet products does.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    Nothing is free. Society at large, and possibly you, are paying in ways that are not well understood by most - with your concentration, mental well being[0]; as well as sucking the air out of innovation and lots of funding -- a lot of FB income is VC money channeled through startups' advertising budget. If I understand your position correctly, you are fine with it. I'm not. We can agree to disagree. [0] Facebook had an experiment where they showed only sad news to some people, only happy news to others, and tracked the resulting mood which was affected.