3 ms·

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 enti

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
  You're right that the analogy was not quite right. Here's a better one. Facebook creates a virtual world where 50% of the population choose. Apple creates a different virtual world which the other 50% choose. If you simply look at the boundary/entrance you can say there's freedom of choice. But whether you choose apple or Facebook, there's 0 competition once you're inside that world. Further, once you've established a home and connections within one world, switching to the other becomes quite expensive. Competition at the gates, monopoly within. I might add that this is very similar to the concept of company scrip whereby the local coal mine had a monopoly over local jobs and gouged workers for basic necessities. Absolutely you could have moved a town over, but the cost to do so was deemed too high in many cases. When cost of switching is high, monopolistic power can be enforced upon customers. It's a similar situation with a lot of SaaS who have pricing power to strong arm their customers into high margins due to the cost of switching to alternative technologies. In a truly competitive market, SaaS margins should be close to 0. Obviously that's not the case today. Regulation will catch up to all of these tricks, just a question of the timeline. Capitalism only works well when there's an environment of competition, and leveraging high costs of switching or large gated systems to enable profit margins well beyond what a competitive market would bear is antithetical to this concept. That's why antitrust law is so important, and needs to evolve to handle modern business structures.
  - Retric 5y ago
    That’s not really it though, HN like most websites are 100% HN once your inside their walled garden. That’s the normal situation, nobody complains because McDonalds happy meals only contain toys sourced by McDonalds. In the past it’s only monopolies where companies dominate positions gave them leverage that was an issue, otherwise consumer choice was upfront and that worked. Xbox, iOS, and Windows are platforms that also provide basic utility where third parties are part of the basic product. It’s by owning a platform they gain some control over that relationship between consumers and those other companies. Such complex relationships aren’t completely new, malls are gatekeepers for the stores within. But, such relations are normally heavily regulated.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
ethbr0 5y ago
It's a good point. To quantify it, I guess you'd look at total user count and percent of all users on the platform? Most of the ills we're trying to avoid don't seem to easily slip around, if there's a law that says "If you control more than 25% of a market of more than 1M users..." I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple shouldn't be allowed to create an iEcosystem. But what we all want is a future where Apple's ownership of the iEcosystem can't be used in such a way, and generate enough profit, that no one can ever overturn Apple's position.

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
You're right that the analogy was not quite right. Here's a better one. Facebook creates a virtual world where 50% of the population choose. Apple creates a different virtual world which the other 50% choose. If you simply look at the boundary/entrance you can say there's freedom of choice. But whether you choose apple or Facebook, there's 0 competition once you're inside that world. Further, once you've established a home and connections within one world, switching to the other becomes quite expensive. Competition at the gates, monopoly within. I might add that this is very similar to the concept of company scrip whereby the local coal mine had a monopoly over local jobs and gouged workers for basic necessities. Absolutely you could have moved a town over, but the cost to do so was deemed too high in many cases. When cost of switching is high, monopolistic power can be enforced upon customers. It's a similar situation with a lot of SaaS who have pricing power to strong arm their customers into high margins due to the cost of switching to alternative technologies. In a truly competitive market, SaaS margins should be close to 0. Obviously that's not the case today. Regulation will catch up to all of these tricks, just a question of the timeline. Capitalism only works well when there's an environment of competition, and leveraging high costs of switching or large gated systems to enable profit margins well beyond what a competitive market would bear is antithetical to this concept. That's why antitrust law is so important, and needs to evolve to handle modern business structures.
- Retric 5y ago
  That’s not really it though, HN like most websites are 100% HN once your inside their walled garden. That’s the normal situation, nobody complains because McDonalds happy meals only contain toys sourced by McDonalds. In the past it’s only monopolies where companies dominate positions gave them leverage that was an issue, otherwise consumer choice was upfront and that worked. Xbox, iOS, and Windows are platforms that also provide basic utility where third parties are part of the basic product. It’s by owning a platform they gain some control over that relationship between consumers and those other companies. Such complex relationships aren’t completely new, malls are gatekeepers for the stores within. But, such relations are normally heavily regulated.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago

It's a good point. To quantify it, I guess you'd look at total user count and percent of all users on the platform? Most of the ills we're trying to avoid don't seem to easily slip around, if there's a law that says "If you control more than 25% of a market of more than 1M users..." I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple shouldn't be allowed to create an iEcosystem. But what we all want is a future where Apple's ownership of the iEcosystem can't be used in such a way, and generate enough profit, that no one can ever overturn Apple's position.