3 ms·

If you're willfully ignorant of the situation, then sure. Otherwise, using leverage to favor your own product over competitors despite user preference is textbo

by 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...
  - minhazm 6y ago
    That's not a reasonable example at all. Netflix doesn't sell Roku another product like in your example with Microsoft, there's only one product at play here. Netflix and Roku both benefit from this relationship. Roku benefits from selling more Roku's, and Netflix benefits from people having a place to watch their content. Netflix in this case has leverage because they know their content is more important to people than other content so maybe they can turn that into a button. Netflix's user base is also something that they get to negotiate with since more users = more money for Roku, so it really isn't any different from being the highest bidder. As for the Samsung example, I completely disagree. If it was a situation like that Microsoft would have paid enough money to be an exclusive provider. You can't count that $400 million as lost without counting how much Microsoft paid them for the exclusivity. If the NFL was just using a bunch of different products then the value of the advertising to Microsoft is reduced, and so they would pay less for it or not participate at all, which they have every right to do. Most importantly, Roku doesn't have a single button on their remote, they have multiple. Roku's charges companies to put a button on their remote, it's estimated to be $1 per customer. Netflix is likely paying to be on the remote. But even if Netflix wasn't paying or was paying less it's clearly leverage and not anti-competitive behavior because Netflix isn't forcing Roku to only have Netflix on their remote or refuse to do business with them. The thing is that you can always come up with an example for something being anti-competitive. Any company that advertises is inherently anti-competitive because they can throw around their money to force out their competition. As a company I could have a more expensive and inferior product but because I have so much money I can outbid my competitors to get the advertising slot and will outsell my competitors. This isn't anti-competitive behavior in the common understanding of it, and certainly not in the legal sense.
- rocqua 6y ago
  Demanding a button on the remote is different from paying for advertising.
  - minhazm 6y ago
    How so? It is the same thing as advertising. Roku is benefiting greatly from Netflix being on their platform as well. Netflix could ditch Roku and say they only support X other devices. But they both need each other and so they agree to something that makes sense for both parties. Anyway it is pointless, because Roku actually charges companies to put a button on their remote[1]. They supposedly charge $1 for the button per customer. https://mashable.com/article/roku-button-home-screen-advertising/ https://mashable.com/article/roku-button-home-screen-adverti...
- inetknght 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? Yes.
- judge2020 6y ago
  It's anti-competitive, but maybe not illegal. It's certainly a bad UX though: https://youtu.be/djB2xgALGfI https://youtu.be/djB2xgALGfI

by bogwog 6y ago

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...
- minhazm 6y ago
  That's not a reasonable example at all. Netflix doesn't sell Roku another product like in your example with Microsoft, there's only one product at play here. Netflix and Roku both benefit from this relationship. Roku benefits from selling more Roku's, and Netflix benefits from people having a place to watch their content. Netflix in this case has leverage because they know their content is more important to people than other content so maybe they can turn that into a button. Netflix's user base is also something that they get to negotiate with since more users = more money for Roku, so it really isn't any different from being the highest bidder. As for the Samsung example, I completely disagree. If it was a situation like that Microsoft would have paid enough money to be an exclusive provider. You can't count that $400 million as lost without counting how much Microsoft paid them for the exclusivity. If the NFL was just using a bunch of different products then the value of the advertising to Microsoft is reduced, and so they would pay less for it or not participate at all, which they have every right to do. Most importantly, Roku doesn't have a single button on their remote, they have multiple. Roku's charges companies to put a button on their remote, it's estimated to be $1 per customer. Netflix is likely paying to be on the remote. But even if Netflix wasn't paying or was paying less it's clearly leverage and not anti-competitive behavior because Netflix isn't forcing Roku to only have Netflix on their remote or refuse to do business with them. The thing is that you can always come up with an example for something being anti-competitive. Any company that advertises is inherently anti-competitive because they can throw around their money to force out their competition. As a company I could have a more expensive and inferior product but because I have so much money I can outbid my competitors to get the advertising slot and will outsell my competitors. This isn't anti-competitive behavior in the common understanding of it, and certainly not in the legal sense.
rocqua 6y ago
Demanding a button on the remote is different from paying for advertising.
- minhazm 6y ago
  How so? It is the same thing as advertising. Roku is benefiting greatly from Netflix being on their platform as well. Netflix could ditch Roku and say they only support X other devices. But they both need each other and so they agree to something that makes sense for both parties. Anyway it is pointless, because Roku actually charges companies to put a button on their remote[1]. They supposedly charge $1 for the button per customer. https://mashable.com/article/roku-button-home-screen-advertising/ https://mashable.com/article/roku-button-home-screen-adverti...
inetknght 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? Yes.
judge2020 6y ago
It's anti-competitive, but maybe not illegal. It's certainly a bad UX though: https://youtu.be/djB2xgALGfI https://youtu.be/djB2xgALGfI