Wow uh.... hitting a bit hard there. This seems like a very strong reaction, to something that seems straightforward & accurate to me. So you've found a couple

Wow uh.... hitting a bit hard there. This seems like a very strong reaction, to something that seems straightforward & accurate to me. So you've found a couple bones to pick to justify these insults you're gunning to fire... here's my view on them. > No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." Borkism's "consumer harm" theory has, in almost all cases, been centered around hiking prices. Given the lack of interference we've seen for the past 40 years, whether or not there was this "promise" seems moot: there has been a pathetically low level of anti-trust enforcement. Whether promised or not, there has certainly been a delivery. That you can cite a single 20 year old Microsoft case does little to convince me that there is efficient & active anti-trust regulation. It was a pretty heinous act, by Microsoft, at a time when there was only one mainstream consumer OS. But now that there's two OSes, there's no need for anti-trust, seemingly, and Apple is allowed to engage in far far far worse behaviors on iOS with regards to only permitting Safari technology to run, hampering the web. Social media companies have faced no scrutiny in their bonanza of competitor purchasing. The semiconductor market has undergone a radical vast wave of consolidation, again, seemingly entirely unchecked. Whatever the new Robert Bork "consumer harm" standard might grant it license to regulate, it certainly doesn't seem to be doing much. Proving those harms is much harder & more specific a task than what came before, and has, imo, been enormously clearly for the worse, as Cory continues to rightly argue. > No, Cory, those are not "operating costs," The entire basis of this post is that the accounting doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. The accounting of acquisitions as a one time capital costs isn't really genuine or fair, when a constant ongoing stream of acquisitions is required to maintain the power & position of dominance. The dominant player has to keep feeding the meter to continue operating from a position of power. Each of those may be a one time cost, but the macro behavior is that this is not so different than the grid hookup keeping the data-centers running. It sustains the dominance of the entity. It's an operating cost, the cost of staying where they are. Your point about patents is entirely besides the point. This isn't about companies using courts to try to destroy one another- something we haven't ever really seen at scale in the modern world. This is about Saturn Eating His Son. This is about the gigantic titaneous overlords of the planet insuring nothing new ever happens, preventing disruption. By acquiring all freshness & devouring it, bodily.