3 ms·

I've been thinking about that lately, since you're right that the way anti-trust law is currently interpreted there has to be a consumer harm. I think the solut

I've been thinking about that lately, since you're right that the way anti-trust law is currently interpreted there has to be a consumer harm. I think the solution is something like this: consumers use not just Faceboook, but other products and services as well, some of which are not invented yet. By buying up early stage companies that potentially harm Facebook's core business, or by leveraging its large network effects or vast amount of data that no one else has access to, Facebook is harming long-run consumer welfare by preventing or handicapping future innovative businesses and services.

scarface74 6y ago
So who would buy these companies if not some other company where the a acquisition would have “synergies”? Why would VCs invest in companies if they didn’t expect an acquisition? The chance of a company actually making it to a successful IPO is slim.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  Doesn't that just demonstrate that the market is distortionary then? If they can't IPO and they can't be profitable on their own then they aren't creating real value and so the existence of Facebook and other companies that act as acquirers is value destroying rather than value creating.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Are you willing to say that YC isn’t creating anything value? Both Android and iOS were the results of acquisitions of unprofitable VC funded companies. How many people who participate on HN are employed by a VC funded, unprofitable company? How many startup founders right here or desperately trying to get VC funding? Every major feature of the iPhone is the result of an acquisition - multitouch, fingerprint sensors, Face ID, Siri, maps, chip design, Shortcuts, etc.
    - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
      No, I'm not saying that at all. Obviously some acquisitions have been tremendously valuable. Many of those acquisitions could also have existed on their own. But the net effect of something can be negative even if individual things are positive. My criticism was scoped only to the practice of big tech companies buying up competitors and unprofitable businesses. I think this is value destroying over the long term, though it obviously creates value for the people involved.

scarface74 6y ago

So who would buy these companies if not some other company where the a acquisition would have “synergies”? Why would VCs invest in companies if they didn’t expect an acquisition? The chance of a company actually making it to a successful IPO is slim.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
Doesn't that just demonstrate that the market is distortionary then? If they can't IPO and they can't be profitable on their own then they aren't creating real value and so the existence of Facebook and other companies that act as acquirers is value destroying rather than value creating.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Are you willing to say that YC isn’t creating anything value? Both Android and iOS were the results of acquisitions of unprofitable VC funded companies. How many people who participate on HN are employed by a VC funded, unprofitable company? How many startup founders right here or desperately trying to get VC funding? Every major feature of the iPhone is the result of an acquisition - multitouch, fingerprint sensors, Face ID, Siri, maps, chip design, Shortcuts, etc.
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    No, I'm not saying that at all. Obviously some acquisitions have been tremendously valuable. Many of those acquisitions could also have existed on their own. But the net effect of something can be negative even if individual things are positive. My criticism was scoped only to the practice of big tech companies buying up competitors and unprofitable businesses. I think this is value destroying over the long term, though it obviously creates value for the people involved.