6 ms·

From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you

by kodah 5y ago

From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change, imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly. I'm also interested in discussing conglomerates and whether they are good or bad, and how to control them similar to monopolies, but that discourse can't be had until we can agree on something like the definition of a monopoly.

simonh 5y ago
How would you like the definition of a monopoly to change? Or to avoid sniping over details if you're not sure of a definition text, how would you like it to change and to what objective?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Personally? I think we should get away from "monopoly" and move towards "excessively large market entity." The problems now have more to do with market capitalization / revenue than they do with physical control. Apple or Google aren't trying to buy all the railroad tracks between Cincinnati and Kansas City (app stores aside). They're trying to assemble a company that owns all the disparate but critical pieces in an ecosystem, then leverage those into extracting higher than free market rents. Consequently, remedies shouldn't be the same as for monopolies (read: breaking up companies). They should instead of targeted on (1) classifying corporations by their size & (2) placing limits on their actions, in places where that size provides its own monopolistic-esque advantage. Afaict, these should take the form of prohibiting acquisitions of competitors (Facebook shouldn't be able to buy Instagram or WhatsApp, but Instagram and WhatsApp should have been allowed to buy each other / merge) and stricter limits on market entry (FAANGM or SoftBank deciding they want to throw stupid money into a hole to poison the well and capture market share).
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    I'd rather stay away from focusing on the size of the org itself, and moreso on the "markets" that they create. When a platform or market is created by an entity, and that platform reaches a certain scale, they must allow free competition within that market. Here's an extreme example. Say somewhere down the line Facebook invents some metaverse or VR world. This becomes the primary form of interaction between people... 99% of interactions take place in this virtual world. It's clear the scale and extent to which this platform impacts people's lives is substantial. So Facebook logically would have to allow other sellers to enter this virtual world and compete to drive prices towards a free market equilibrium. Past monopoly legislation has focused on competition outside the walls, product vs product. But nowadays the walled gardens are getting big enough to the point that these companies have large control over our lives. Maybe that example just muddies things, but the important thing in my mind is to identify "private markets" and enforce that competition be allowed.
    - Retric 5y ago
      > 99% Your describing a monopoly. IMO the real question is what actually harms consumers. Requiring companies to open their platforms is one option for regulation, but perhaps not ideal. Great for tech companies sure, but possibly a huge opportunity for scammers. Consumers and companies are often at odds, banning app coins for example is great for gamers and the opposite of an open platform. A flat regulation that all software platforms are limited to X% fees might be a better option.
      - asdff 5y ago
        What probably harms consumers the most is that companies with large purses have an outsized influence on policy and typically write their own regulations that serve to generate additional profit and make it difficult for new entrants to the market to emerge. You don't need to have a monopoly for that, just a good old fasioned colluding industry and a politician who cares more about their individual wealth than the collective good of their electorate that they represent.
      - adam_arthur 5y ago
- natpalmer1776 5y ago
  I just want take the time to compliment this question. I find it difficult to articulate exactly what you've done here, but I wish I saw it more often.
ethbr0 5y ago
Exactly. Plus a relatively small percentage of HN (or anywhere) knows the current legal tests of a monopoly. But everyone always becomes substantially less interested in topics once it becomes hashing out legal language. Which is why we pay lawyers well.
np_tedious 5y ago
Some good faith changes to the definition of monopoly could certainly be valuable. However, I fear most efforts would start with "Companies X, Y, and Z need to be categorized as monopolies. Let's write rules to fit"
- kodah 5y ago
  Agreed. Lina Khan is one of my favorite voices on this matter for that reason. Edit: Stating my opinion without why isn't very HN-ly of me, eh? She's been on Planet Money and discussed her ideas, where they come from, etc before. I don't think I'd quite do them justice explaining them myself. Apparently she's now a chair of the FTC as well (which I was unaware of). If you want a raw view of her views on anti-trust: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p... In one of the podcasts she dives into the history of anti-trust. She talks about how after Standard Oil we convinced ourselves everything was a monopoly and stifled a lot of innovation, which led to some reforms later and the anti-trust we have today which are demonstrably too permissive. She has picked on Amazon (as a wider corporation) quite a bit, but a lot of it has to do with the practices of their ecommerce division and the extent to which Amazon can compete with it's vendors. Basically, she believes there's a middleground to be found between the two anti-trust time periods and that it's important to be concise in how we do that. You can see some of her specific criticisms in the article above. A more full bibliography can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan I highly suggest "The Separation of Platforms and Commerce" as that's the one that resonated with me, having worked in the startup world.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    I initially downvoted but thought it would be better to ask for the information I think would make your comment more helpful. Would you mind linking to something pertinent, in order to add to the discussion? What does she say? Where does she say it? Why does that appeal to you?
    - kodah 5y ago
oblio 5y ago
In my opinion we don't need to change the definition of monopoly, we need to integrate "conflict of interest" more into anti-competitive practice discourse. Apple, Google, etc. are having their cake and eating it, too. They have platform which they charge others to use (ok), and then they study usage data (somewhat shady) and then launch direct competitors (<<super>> shady). That's the root of the problem in many cases. Of course, this needs to be coupled with stronger anti-cartel enforcement. Because tech is rarely a pure monopoly, but extremely often is ends up under the control of a cartel.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  Most of the apps that Apple sells are already in highly competitive markets like music, video streaming, cloud storage, etc. I really don’t feel bad if some developer selling a leveler app for 99¢ goes out of business because Apple pre-installs a free leveling app on the iPhone.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    If Apple only pre-installed a free leveling app on iPhones. What happened to time tracking is they also banned existing tools and APIs they used.
    - rofrol 5y ago
      You mean this https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/apple-puts-third-party-screen-time-apps-on-notice/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/apple-puts-third-party-scr... ?
  - moron4hire 5y ago
    Yeah man, fuck that guy and the kids he's trying to feed. Tim Apple needs another boat, baby!
- sulam 5y ago
  Honestly the shadiest practitioner here is Amazon. Google and Facebook are possibly second and third. I think Apple is a pretty distant one, maybe behind folks like Netflix.
philip1209 5y ago
The issue is more that they are conglomerates - they control the device, the discovery mechanism, the payment mechanism, and the identity mechanism. In each of those areas, they may or may not be a monopoly - but together their broad control creates an anti-competitive environment. I wrote more about that here: https://www.tinker.fyi/6-break-up-tech-conglomerates/ https://www.tinker.fyi/6-break-up-tech-conglomerates/
tshaddox 5y ago
The problem is that the proposed new definition of "monopoly" generally goes something like "any company who has a product that I like and does anything at all with that product that I don't like." Like, regardless of what the iPhone's market share is, if I like to use my iPhone, but I don't like one aspect of the iPhone, that means that Apple is acting like a monopoly because they're not completely honoring my personal preferences and the only option I have is to switch to another smartphone which I don't want to do.
mr_toad 5y ago
Why would we want to change a term that is used in countless legal and economic contexts just to dumb down the definition for the sake of a few people who haven’t bothered to do a bit of light reading on the topic? Have you any idea of how many laws would need to change, not to mention all the academic papers, legal and academic commentaries and textbooks?

by kodah 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

How would you like the definition of a monopoly to change? Or to avoid sniping over details if you're not sure of a definition text, how would you like it to change and to what objective?

ethbr0 5y ago
Personally? I think we should get away from "monopoly" and move towards "excessively large market entity." The problems now have more to do with market capitalization / revenue than they do with physical control. Apple or Google aren't trying to buy all the railroad tracks between Cincinnati and Kansas City (app stores aside). They're trying to assemble a company that owns all the disparate but critical pieces in an ecosystem, then leverage those into extracting higher than free market rents. Consequently, remedies shouldn't be the same as for monopolies (read: breaking up companies). They should instead of targeted on (1) classifying corporations by their size & (2) placing limits on their actions, in places where that size provides its own monopolistic-esque advantage. Afaict, these should take the form of prohibiting acquisitions of competitors (Facebook shouldn't be able to buy Instagram or WhatsApp, but Instagram and WhatsApp should have been allowed to buy each other / merge) and stricter limits on market entry (FAANGM or SoftBank deciding they want to throw stupid money into a hole to poison the well and capture market share).
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  I'd rather stay away from focusing on the size of the org itself, and moreso on the "markets" that they create. When a platform or market is created by an entity, and that platform reaches a certain scale, they must allow free competition within that market. Here's an extreme example. Say somewhere down the line Facebook invents some metaverse or VR world. This becomes the primary form of interaction between people... 99% of interactions take place in this virtual world. It's clear the scale and extent to which this platform impacts people's lives is substantial. So Facebook logically would have to allow other sellers to enter this virtual world and compete to drive prices towards a free market equilibrium. Past monopoly legislation has focused on competition outside the walls, product vs product. But nowadays the walled gardens are getting big enough to the point that these companies have large control over our lives. Maybe that example just muddies things, but the important thing in my mind is to identify "private markets" and enforce that competition be allowed.
  - Retric 5y ago
    > 99% Your describing a monopoly. IMO the real question is what actually harms consumers. Requiring companies to open their platforms is one option for regulation, but perhaps not ideal. Great for tech companies sure, but possibly a huge opportunity for scammers. Consumers and companies are often at odds, banning app coins for example is great for gamers and the opposite of an open platform. A flat regulation that all software platforms are limited to X% fees might be a better option.
    - asdff 5y ago
      What probably harms consumers the most is that companies with large purses have an outsized influence on policy and typically write their own regulations that serve to generate additional profit and make it difficult for new entrants to the market to emerge. You don't need to have a monopoly for that, just a good old fasioned colluding industry and a politician who cares more about their individual wealth than the collective good of their electorate that they represent.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
natpalmer1776 5y ago
I just want take the time to compliment this question. I find it difficult to articulate exactly what you've done here, but I wish I saw it more often.

ethbr0 5y ago

Exactly. Plus a relatively small percentage of HN (or anywhere) knows the current legal tests of a monopoly. But everyone always becomes substantially less interested in topics once it becomes hashing out legal language. Which is why we pay lawyers well.

np_tedious 5y ago

Some good faith changes to the definition of monopoly could certainly be valuable. However, I fear most efforts would start with "Companies X, Y, and Z need to be categorized as monopolies. Let's write rules to fit"

kodah 5y ago
Agreed. Lina Khan is one of my favorite voices on this matter for that reason. Edit: Stating my opinion without why isn't very HN-ly of me, eh? She's been on Planet Money and discussed her ideas, where they come from, etc before. I don't think I'd quite do them justice explaining them myself. Apparently she's now a chair of the FTC as well (which I was unaware of). If you want a raw view of her views on anti-trust: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p... In one of the podcasts she dives into the history of anti-trust. She talks about how after Standard Oil we convinced ourselves everything was a monopoly and stifled a lot of innovation, which led to some reforms later and the anti-trust we have today which are demonstrably too permissive. She has picked on Amazon (as a wider corporation) quite a bit, but a lot of it has to do with the practices of their ecommerce division and the extent to which Amazon can compete with it's vendors. Basically, she believes there's a middleground to be found between the two anti-trust time periods and that it's important to be concise in how we do that. You can see some of her specific criticisms in the article above. A more full bibliography can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan I highly suggest "The Separation of Platforms and Commerce" as that's the one that resonated with me, having worked in the startup world.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  I initially downvoted but thought it would be better to ask for the information I think would make your comment more helpful. Would you mind linking to something pertinent, in order to add to the discussion? What does she say? Where does she say it? Why does that appeal to you?
  - kodah 5y ago

oblio 5y ago

In my opinion we don't need to change the definition of monopoly, we need to integrate "conflict of interest" more into anti-competitive practice discourse. Apple, Google, etc. are having their cake and eating it, too. They have platform which they charge others to use (ok), and then they study usage data (somewhat shady) and then launch direct competitors (<<super>> shady). That's the root of the problem in many cases. Of course, this needs to be coupled with stronger anti-cartel enforcement. Because tech is rarely a pure monopoly, but extremely often is ends up under the control of a cartel.

jdavis703 5y ago
Most of the apps that Apple sells are already in highly competitive markets like music, video streaming, cloud storage, etc. I really don’t feel bad if some developer selling a leveler app for 99¢ goes out of business because Apple pre-installs a free leveling app on the iPhone.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  If Apple only pre-installed a free leveling app on iPhones. What happened to time tracking is they also banned existing tools and APIs they used.
  - rofrol 5y ago
    You mean this https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/apple-puts-third-party-screen-time-apps-on-notice/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/apple-puts-third-party-scr... ?
- moron4hire 5y ago
  Yeah man, fuck that guy and the kids he's trying to feed. Tim Apple needs another boat, baby!
sulam 5y ago
Honestly the shadiest practitioner here is Amazon. Google and Facebook are possibly second and third. I think Apple is a pretty distant one, maybe behind folks like Netflix.

philip1209 5y ago

The issue is more that they are conglomerates - they control the device, the discovery mechanism, the payment mechanism, and the identity mechanism. In each of those areas, they may or may not be a monopoly - but together their broad control creates an anti-competitive environment. I wrote more about that here: https://www.tinker.fyi/6-break-up-tech-conglomerates/ https://www.tinker.fyi/6-break-up-tech-conglomerates/

tshaddox 5y ago

The problem is that the proposed new definition of "monopoly" generally goes something like "any company who has a product that I like and does anything at all with that product that I don't like." Like, regardless of what the iPhone's market share is, if I like to use my iPhone, but I don't like one aspect of the iPhone, that means that Apple is acting like a monopoly because they're not completely honoring my personal preferences and the only option I have is to switch to another smartphone which I don't want to do.

mr_toad 5y ago

Why would we want to change a term that is used in countless legal and economic contexts just to dumb down the definition for the sake of a few people who haven’t bothered to do a bit of light reading on the topic? Have you any idea of how many laws would need to change, not to mention all the academic papers, legal and academic commentaries and textbooks?