2 ms·
It's counter-productive, it aims at punishing successful where mere "bigness" is used as the proof of "unfair". We don't know how much cheaper Apple products co
by ghostwriter 6y ago
It's counter-productive, it aims at punishing successful where mere "bigness" is used as the proof of "unfair". We don't know how much cheaper Apple products could be if it hadn't have to spread costs of lobbying its interests in Washington DC across their device prices.
> The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN
it depends on your reliance on that kind of services and varies greatly among the userbase. I'm using Apple since 2014, I've never needed to use any of these services, and I would prefer to have a device that is hard to disassemble and is cheaper to produce without a loss in quality.
- sjy 6y agoIt’s true that we can’t know how much cheaper Apple products would be if the antitrust laws didn’t exist, and that some people (and not only shareholders) benefit from or prefer a less competitive market. But conversely, we don’t know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep “bigness” in check. I am convinced by the history of antitrust that competition regulators do more good than harm.
- ghostwriter 6y ago> But conversely, we don’t know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep “bigness” in check. We know it from history for sure, that "bigness" of an economic player is not a problem. There was no anti-trust legislation prior 1913, and Standard Oil was lowering prices for their oil and kerosine every year in order to compete with emerging oil wells developers, which kept popping up dispite Standard's dominance. [1] Customers, large and small, were benefiting along the way. But notice how governments-coordinated OPEC influences the prices and ability to enter the market: [1] https://www.winton.com/longer-view/price-history-oil https://www.winton.com/longer-view/price-history-oil