5 ms·

Size imposes a penalty on companies anyway. And companies shrink as well as grow. IBM shrank. Microsoft closed up its entire mobile efforts after acquiring Noki

Size imposes a penalty on companies anyway. And companies shrink as well as grow. IBM shrank. Microsoft closed up its entire mobile efforts after acquiring Nokia (another company that shrank). Then there’s Polaroid, Blockbuster, Xerox, DEC, ... the list goes on and on. Even Sears was once unassailable. Until it wasn’t. Similarly, Amazon might seem too entrenched now, but really it’s just one storefront among many and could easily go the way of Sears. There are also lots of antitrust tools available to regulators, including breakup. Saying “acquisitions are bad” and imposing an arbitrary limit on size is short-sighted nanny-state thinking. The market should be regulated, but market forces are also an important regulator and that fact needs to be recognised more widely.

indigochill 6y ago
> Then there’s Polaroid, Blockbuster, Xerox, DEC... I wonder what the correlation is to long-term business health and acquisition. Facebook I would bet you would have shrunk substantially by now if not for its acquisition of Instagram. If Google's long purchase history of various supplementary services (like the tech behind Google Earth or YouTube) had been blocked, they would have at least taken a lot longer to get to their current position. By contrast, I don't think any of your example of shrunk companies going on anything like the acquisition spree that these tech giants have. At this point they don't have to innovate because they have enough money to keep buying the new hotness forever. In general I agree with your opposition to "short-sighted nanny-state thinking", but this seems like the lightest touch that solves the problem of tech/wealth consolidation that I've seen, but I'm certainly interested in hearing about lighter solutions.
- signal11 6y ago
  > I don't think any of your example of shrunk companies going on anything like the acquisition spree that these tech giants have. IBM has a long history re acquisitions[1]. Xerox hasn't done it quite as much, but they started as a photographic paper company (Haloid) and actually acquired their photocopying business (the Rectigraph Company). They've made many other acquisitions more recently[2], but of course on a scale that suits their budget. To the bigger point about the multi-billion dollar acquisitions that current tech giants do, those are a function of the massive cash piles the companies are sitting on and the low interest rate regime worldwide (which causes stock prices to go up). It's not like these "lock up" competition or anything. Indeed, by ending Nuance as an independent specialized voice to text company, there'll be more pressure now to fund alternative independent implementations. Google already has one that's nipping at Nuance's heels. You might see others fund a third effort now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_IBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... [2] https://www.news.xerox.com/investors/acquisitions https://www.news.xerox.com/investors/acquisitions
varispeed 6y ago
> Microsoft closed up its entire mobile efforts after acquiring Nokia Sometimes what happens is, that big company sees something useful that small company is doing, they buy them, pick the part that they need and then close the rest. > Amazon might seem too entrenched now, but really it’s just one storefront Then they should pay taxes just as a storefront. > The market should be regulated, but market forces are also an important regulator and that fact needs to be recognised more widely. The regulation is very weak. There is no level playing field as big companies have money to buy politicians and regulation that favours them and penalises competition. The whole concept of legalised corruption - lobbying goes against free market and should be illegal.
- signal11 6y ago
  > Then they should pay taxes just as a storefront. If they haven’t paid whatever tax is due, then the relevant national tax body should throw the book at them. But I suspect you’ll find their tax lawyers & accountants ensure they’re in full compliance with relevant local laws. Cases like [1] come to mind. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-tax-idUSKCN24G10B https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-tax-idUSKCN24G10...

indigochill 6y ago

> Then there’s Polaroid, Blockbuster, Xerox, DEC... I wonder what the correlation is to long-term business health and acquisition. Facebook I would bet you would have shrunk substantially by now if not for its acquisition of Instagram. If Google's long purchase history of various supplementary services (like the tech behind Google Earth or YouTube) had been blocked, they would have at least taken a lot longer to get to their current position. By contrast, I don't think any of your example of shrunk companies going on anything like the acquisition spree that these tech giants have. At this point they don't have to innovate because they have enough money to keep buying the new hotness forever. In general I agree with your opposition to "short-sighted nanny-state thinking", but this seems like the lightest touch that solves the problem of tech/wealth consolidation that I've seen, but I'm certainly interested in hearing about lighter solutions.

signal11 6y ago
> I don't think any of your example of shrunk companies going on anything like the acquisition spree that these tech giants have. IBM has a long history re acquisitions[1]. Xerox hasn't done it quite as much, but they started as a photographic paper company (Haloid) and actually acquired their photocopying business (the Rectigraph Company). They've made many other acquisitions more recently[2], but of course on a scale that suits their budget. To the bigger point about the multi-billion dollar acquisitions that current tech giants do, those are a function of the massive cash piles the companies are sitting on and the low interest rate regime worldwide (which causes stock prices to go up). It's not like these "lock up" competition or anything. Indeed, by ending Nuance as an independent specialized voice to text company, there'll be more pressure now to fund alternative independent implementations. Google already has one that's nipping at Nuance's heels. You might see others fund a third effort now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_IBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... [2] https://www.news.xerox.com/investors/acquisitions https://www.news.xerox.com/investors/acquisitions

varispeed 6y ago

> Microsoft closed up its entire mobile efforts after acquiring Nokia Sometimes what happens is, that big company sees something useful that small company is doing, they buy them, pick the part that they need and then close the rest. > Amazon might seem too entrenched now, but really it’s just one storefront Then they should pay taxes just as a storefront. > The market should be regulated, but market forces are also an important regulator and that fact needs to be recognised more widely. The regulation is very weak. There is no level playing field as big companies have money to buy politicians and regulation that favours them and penalises competition. The whole concept of legalised corruption - lobbying goes against free market and should be illegal.

signal11 6y ago
> Then they should pay taxes just as a storefront. If they haven’t paid whatever tax is due, then the relevant national tax body should throw the book at them. But I suspect you’ll find their tax lawyers & accountants ensure they’re in full compliance with relevant local laws. Cases like [1] come to mind. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-tax-idUSKCN24G10B https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-tax-idUSKCN24G10...