4 ms·

No question that anti-trust is currently pretty much incoherent. One frustration is that it has morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm

No question that anti-trust is currently pretty much incoherent. One frustration is that it has morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. Google downranks some crappy content farm / shopping aggregator - bam - antitrust complaint. Yes, it hurt that business and so helps google shopping - but no one asks - do users like these crap content farms? Same with google finance - I liked it. Now google can't prioritize that - even through I want it and so I get sent to a giant ad laden garbage fest of another finance / stock quote site. The other issue consumers no longer have any leverage with respect to very large businesses and govt is no where. So Apple can build a very valuable offering by playing "cop" in their closed garden. That is a consumer benefit. In other words, you individually would never be able to negotiate a deal where someone would let you sign up for their service anonymously, but apple can force that. They can force trials signups to have full details of renewals (same font). They can force folks to allow you to cancel subscriptions without huge advance warnings and will remind you of subscriptions in advance. Yes, this sucks for developers, but the consumer is helped by these steps. Until govt steps in, I'd love for them to back off on folks creating these places where the tons of crap the govt allows on the broader internet is not permitted.

richardfey 5y ago
> Now google can't prioritize that - even through I want it Of course they can: they could let you opt-in to this specific facet of customised search results. The general issue is about the default search results.
mpweiher 5y ago
> morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. As far as I know, it is actually the focus on "consumer harm" that is, well was, the new thing, introduced in the 1980s under Reagan, and it largely gutted antitrust law. And that was exactly the purpose. For much of that history, including the seminal breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil in 1911, the ruling antitrust theory was “harmful dominance.” That’s the idea that companies that dominate an industry are potentially dangerous merely because they are dominant. With dominance comes the ability to impose corporate will on workers, suppliers, other industries, people who live near factories, even politicians and regulators. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 saw the rise of a new antitrust theory, based on “consumer welfare.” Consumer welfare advocates argue that monopolies can be efficient, able to deliver better products at lower prices to consumers, and therefore the government does us all a disservice when it indiscriminately takes on monopolies. https://wolfstreet.com/2021/08/14/antitrust-bombshells-in-the-fine-print-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ https://wolfstreet.com/2021/08/14/antitrust-bombshells-in-th...
- pencilcode 5y ago
  Monopolies in the long term tend to lead to higher prices because without good competition what’s the incentive to sell with low profit margins? So, sell cheap for years, kill any competition, then the market is yours and you can do whatever you want to the inevitable detriment of the consumer. The consumer also looses in monopolies.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    But the complaints against apple have focused on things they do that at least too me seem helpful and a positive part of my experience with apple. I feel MUCH more comfortable spending money via apple then I do almost anywhere else. Software on the web - endless issues buying / refunding / renewing. And if I don't like apple (which only has like 15% market share) I can switch to any number of android phones. It's just weird seeing the FTC going after a player that is generally doing things consumers like. Meanwhile, android phones ship with rom loaded rootkits / trackers / overlays and app stores and what do we hear from FTC? Crickets - literally.
    - lozenge 5y ago
      But there's a lot that would help consumers that Apple conspicuously don't do. It took them ages to deal with kids making unauthorised in app purchases and AFAIK they still haven't dealt with scam apps and scam subscriptions ($150/year QR code scanning app). Consumers would appreciate PWAs but it doesn't suit Apple's corporate strategy so they are poorly supported. You can't pay through the Netflix or Kindle app due to their ridiculous rules. They look for ways to keep market dominance and move into more markets and then they think about consumer benefits they can add on the side.
      - couchridr 5y ago
        I might add, Apple could kill the market for stolen iPhones (by preventing a phone from working when they get a bona ride police report) but they don’t.
    - 5y ago
Razengan 5y ago
> One frustration is that it has morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. This is the root of most hullabaloo around Apple, isn’t it? Many of the things they do, like limiting exploitation by third-party payment systems (e.g. which rarely offer refunds for regretful purchases, unlike the App Store which always complies) or hiding your email from personal data farmers, ultimately benefit consumers, but of course Apple’s competitors would love to break those walls down and invade the garden.
- slownews45 5y ago
  It's interesting because the coalition for "app fairness" is a whose who almost of folks who have repeatedly paid fines / penalties (which barely covers the cost) for their billing and other practices. We already know how the other guys do it, they screw you. must cancel 30 days in advance or you get a 1 year renewal. Meanwhile, when I delete an app that has a subscription apple reminds me and suggests cancelling subscription! The problem is individuals have NO / ZERO leverage in these deals these days. This is not your corner grocer. Match Group etc are major companies - and yes, they will do everything they can to extract every $, long term brand strength be darned.
gambler 5y ago
How would a consumer know that they are "harmed" by Google's shenanigans when those shenanigans involve deleting the competition before it gets the chance to compete? This sounds like a catch 22 type of definition of monopoly. Businesses need competition for the free market to work properly.

richardfey 5y ago

> Now google can't prioritize that - even through I want it Of course they can: they could let you opt-in to this specific facet of customised search results. The general issue is about the default search results.

mpweiher 5y ago

> morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. As far as I know, it is actually the focus on "consumer harm" that is, well was, the new thing, introduced in the 1980s under Reagan, and it largely gutted antitrust law. And that was exactly the purpose. For much of that history, including the seminal breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil in 1911, the ruling antitrust theory was “harmful dominance.” That’s the idea that companies that dominate an industry are potentially dangerous merely because they are dominant. With dominance comes the ability to impose corporate will on workers, suppliers, other industries, people who live near factories, even politicians and regulators. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 saw the rise of a new antitrust theory, based on “consumer welfare.” Consumer welfare advocates argue that monopolies can be efficient, able to deliver better products at lower prices to consumers, and therefore the government does us all a disservice when it indiscriminately takes on monopolies. https://wolfstreet.com/2021/08/14/antitrust-bombshells-in-the-fine-print-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ https://wolfstreet.com/2021/08/14/antitrust-bombshells-in-th...

pencilcode 5y ago
Monopolies in the long term tend to lead to higher prices because without good competition what’s the incentive to sell with low profit margins? So, sell cheap for years, kill any competition, then the market is yours and you can do whatever you want to the inevitable detriment of the consumer. The consumer also looses in monopolies.
- slownews45 5y ago
  But the complaints against apple have focused on things they do that at least too me seem helpful and a positive part of my experience with apple. I feel MUCH more comfortable spending money via apple then I do almost anywhere else. Software on the web - endless issues buying / refunding / renewing. And if I don't like apple (which only has like 15% market share) I can switch to any number of android phones. It's just weird seeing the FTC going after a player that is generally doing things consumers like. Meanwhile, android phones ship with rom loaded rootkits / trackers / overlays and app stores and what do we hear from FTC? Crickets - literally.
  - lozenge 5y ago
    But there's a lot that would help consumers that Apple conspicuously don't do. It took them ages to deal with kids making unauthorised in app purchases and AFAIK they still haven't dealt with scam apps and scam subscriptions ($150/year QR code scanning app). Consumers would appreciate PWAs but it doesn't suit Apple's corporate strategy so they are poorly supported. You can't pay through the Netflix or Kindle app due to their ridiculous rules. They look for ways to keep market dominance and move into more markets and then they think about consumer benefits they can add on the side.
    - couchridr 5y ago
      I might add, Apple could kill the market for stolen iPhones (by preventing a phone from working when they get a bona ride police report) but they don’t.
  - 5y ago

Razengan 5y ago

> One frustration is that it has morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. This is the root of most hullabaloo around Apple, isn’t it? Many of the things they do, like limiting exploitation by third-party payment systems (e.g. which rarely offer refunds for regretful purchases, unlike the App Store which always complies) or hiding your email from personal data farmers, ultimately benefit consumers, but of course Apple’s competitors would love to break those walls down and invade the garden.

slownews45 5y ago
It's interesting because the coalition for "app fairness" is a whose who almost of folks who have repeatedly paid fines / penalties (which barely covers the cost) for their billing and other practices. We already know how the other guys do it, they screw you. must cancel 30 days in advance or you get a 1 year renewal. Meanwhile, when I delete an app that has a subscription apple reminds me and suggests cancelling subscription! The problem is individuals have NO / ZERO leverage in these deals these days. This is not your corner grocer. Match Group etc are major companies - and yes, they will do everything they can to extract every $, long term brand strength be darned.

gambler 5y ago

How would a consumer know that they are "harmed" by Google's shenanigans when those shenanigans involve deleting the competition before it gets the chance to compete? This sounds like a catch 22 type of definition of monopoly. Businesses need competition for the free market to work properly.