4 ms·

> It's a very common practice for streaming services to make crazy demands about the devices they're on That doesn't make it any less anti-competitive

Spivak 6y ago
If it was “you must have a Netflix button and no others” I could see the argument but the demand for a particular user experience isn’t anticompetitive automatically. Company with leverage others might not have using that leverage isn’t something we vilify in general.
- bogwog 6y ago
  If you're willfully ignorant of the situation, then sure. Otherwise, using leverage to favor your own product over competitors despite user preference is textbook anti-competitive behavior, almost comically so: Not only does it unfairly disadvantage competitors, but it also robs consumers of choice (by ignoring their preferences). I would love to see one of the meetings that lead to absurdly unethical and borderline/outright illegal decisions like this; did anyone bother to bring it up? Did the person that brought it up get the silent treatment? Were they no longer invited to lunch? Does everyone just understand that those topics are off limits? Or do these people seriously not care because they know they can get away with it?
  - Spivak 6y ago
    No, it really isn't. Look, I agree with you -- a company throwing their weight around feels super shitty. But leveraging your advantages is basically just business. Netflix paying Roku to add their button on remotes wouldn't be anti-competitive in the same way that buying exclusive ad space isn't. And therefore Netflix realizing that they bring so much value to the Roku ecosystem that they can get their button without actually having to pay is good business. Like I hate it. But it's true.
  - minhazm 6y ago
    It's like Microsoft sponsoring the NFL and so they have to use Surface tablets. That means they don't have Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, and other competitors tablets. Is that anti-competitive? If so, then every business out there must be anti-competitive. Buying ads to get yourself on a higher position in search results, buying ads on TV during primetime slots, and any behavior that makes you look better than your competitors would also be anti-competitive.
    - bogwog 6y ago
      That's not the same thing at all. Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders. That's what competition looks like. A better example would be if Microsoft forced the NFL to use their tablets by threatening to invalidate all of the Windows and Office licenses in their organization. Would you say that's "leverage" or anti-competitive behavior? Imagine if Samsung offered $400m to the NFL so they use Samsung computers. Microsoft's "leverage" could prevent the NFL from taking that offer, and there's nothing Samsung can do about it. That's anti-competitive behavior: one company unfairly disadvantaging competitors to the detriment of the customer (NFL in this case, which wouldn't get the $400m)
      - inetknght 6y ago
        > Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders How do I, as another consumer of Microsoft products, get in on this "get paid to use Microsoft products" deal? Oh right, I can't. Because it's not a competition. It's an anti competition.
        bogwog 6y ago
        You can't because you're a boring person. If you were famous or had a large following on, say, social media, then Microsoft might consider reaching out and paying you for a sponsorship. Although in reality they probably wouldn't do that, to avoid an embarrassing Alicia Keys type situation https://www.cnet.com/news/blackberrys-alicia-keys-tweets-from-iphone-claims-a-hack/ https://www.cnet.com/news/blackberrys-alicia-keys-tweets-fro...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Spivak 6y ago

If it was “you must have a Netflix button and no others” I could see the argument but the demand for a particular user experience isn’t anticompetitive automatically. Company with leverage others might not have using that leverage isn’t something we vilify in general.

bogwog 6y ago
If you're willfully ignorant of the situation, then sure. Otherwise, using leverage to favor your own product over competitors despite user preference is textbook anti-competitive behavior, almost comically so: Not only does it unfairly disadvantage competitors, but it also robs consumers of choice (by ignoring their preferences). I would love to see one of the meetings that lead to absurdly unethical and borderline/outright illegal decisions like this; did anyone bother to bring it up? Did the person that brought it up get the silent treatment? Were they no longer invited to lunch? Does everyone just understand that those topics are off limits? Or do these people seriously not care because they know they can get away with it?
- Spivak 6y ago
  No, it really isn't. Look, I agree with you -- a company throwing their weight around feels super shitty. But leveraging your advantages is basically just business. Netflix paying Roku to add their button on remotes wouldn't be anti-competitive in the same way that buying exclusive ad space isn't. And therefore Netflix realizing that they bring so much value to the Roku ecosystem that they can get their button without actually having to pay is good business. Like I hate it. But it's true.
- minhazm 6y ago
  It's like Microsoft sponsoring the NFL and so they have to use Surface tablets. That means they don't have Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, and other competitors tablets. Is that anti-competitive? If so, then every business out there must be anti-competitive. Buying ads to get yourself on a higher position in search results, buying ads on TV during primetime slots, and any behavior that makes you look better than your competitors would also be anti-competitive.
  - bogwog 6y ago
    That's not the same thing at all. Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders. That's what competition looks like. A better example would be if Microsoft forced the NFL to use their tablets by threatening to invalidate all of the Windows and Office licenses in their organization. Would you say that's "leverage" or anti-competitive behavior? Imagine if Samsung offered $400m to the NFL so they use Samsung computers. Microsoft's "leverage" could prevent the NFL from taking that offer, and there's nothing Samsung can do about it. That's anti-competitive behavior: one company unfairly disadvantaging competitors to the detriment of the customer (NFL in this case, which wouldn't get the $400m)
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders How do I, as another consumer of Microsoft products, get in on this "get paid to use Microsoft products" deal? Oh right, I can't. Because it's not a competition. It's an anti competition.
      - bogwog 6y ago
        You can't because you're a boring person. If you were famous or had a large following on, say, social media, then Microsoft might consider reaching out and paying you for a sponsorship. Although in reality they probably wouldn't do that, to avoid an embarrassing Alicia Keys type situation https://www.cnet.com/news/blackberrys-alicia-keys-tweets-from-iphone-claims-a-hack/ https://www.cnet.com/news/blackberrys-alicia-keys-tweets-fro...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]