3 ms·

That argument is completely unpersuasive. Startups might be forced to be in a position to be sold because their huge company competitors might be pressuring the

by rnk 4y ago

That argument is completely unpersuasive. Startups might be forced to be in a position to be sold because their huge company competitors might be pressuring their potential customers not to use them (think amazon vs a new startup offering some database capability). If you can bundle your version of something or charge almost nothing, you starve the startup of any market.

monero-xmr 4y ago
It sounds like you want to ban competition. Surely if I own an ice cream truck, and I want to include a cone with my ice cream, that doesn’t mean I’m damaging the independent cone seller? Why is that fair but bundling a database is not?
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  What a bogus hypothetical. What market exists to buy individual cones? It’s not the bundling that’s the problem, it’s dropping prices of a single product in a single market to destroy competition in that space while staying afloat with VC or other revenue streams/products.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    So you say! I included a cone for FREE with my ice cream. I have dropped the price to zero! If we banned ice cream trucks from selling cones, surely an independent cone business would spring up if market demand existed. This contrived example is to prove my point - you claim I’m speaking absurdities, but if I claim bundling a database (or caching solution, or search engine, whatever) is merely a convenience, you cry foul. Nothing is logical here
    - hattmall 4y ago
      Your example is not analogous. It is more accurate to say you are an ice cream seller and the only ice cream seller. Their is a thriving market of sellers for donuts and you wish to sell donuts so you give away free donuts with all the ice cream you sale. Not because this is your value proposition, but because you wish to make the donut business untenable for anyone other than the largest ice cream seller. That is antithetical to competition. There should be limits or a prohibition on subsidizing horizontal or vertical business integrations. The limits should be related to the long term consumer value proposition.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > It’s not the bundling that’s the problem, it’s dropping prices of a single product in a single market to destroy competition in that space while staying afloat with VC or other revenue streams/products. The same could be said of open-source software. Most open-source software are clones of commercial products, supported by free labor, and provided at $0. The most successful ones undermine their commercial counterpart and may go so far as to destroy a previously commercially-viable industry. As an example, do you think Linux should be regulated out of existence because its provided at a unsustainably low cost with respect to the competition? If Linux didn't exist, commercial Unix could still be a competitive market. Linux's expansion has also resulted in the deterioration of the consumer OS market, where there had previously been AmigaOS, AtariTOS, VMS, Solaris, BeOS, etc. Linux is also backed by a cartel of commercial supporters that influence what gets added, what gets supported, and what gets kept out. Obviously, these decisions affect what hardware and software consumers would consider purchasing/supporting.
    - llbeansandrice 4y ago
      You’re right that these OS projects can and do destroy the competitive market for their space, but critically they are both free (as in beer and often as in freedom as well) and open. Their reason for being free is not for market capture to destroy competition and then drive up prices. Amazon bundling a service and providing it at reduced cost to capture the market is neither free nor is it open.
- connor11528 4y ago
  Bundling per se isn’t a problem. It becomes illegal when a firm uses market power to destroy competitors. If you’re interested in learning more I suggest reading about the Robinson-Patman Act (1936) and Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) as well as the Sherman Act (1890)

by rnk 4y ago

monero-xmr 4y ago

It sounds like you want to ban competition. Surely if I own an ice cream truck, and I want to include a cone with my ice cream, that doesn’t mean I’m damaging the independent cone seller? Why is that fair but bundling a database is not?

llbeansandrice 4y ago
What a bogus hypothetical. What market exists to buy individual cones? It’s not the bundling that’s the problem, it’s dropping prices of a single product in a single market to destroy competition in that space while staying afloat with VC or other revenue streams/products.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  So you say! I included a cone for FREE with my ice cream. I have dropped the price to zero! If we banned ice cream trucks from selling cones, surely an independent cone business would spring up if market demand existed. This contrived example is to prove my point - you claim I’m speaking absurdities, but if I claim bundling a database (or caching solution, or search engine, whatever) is merely a convenience, you cry foul. Nothing is logical here
  - hattmall 4y ago
    Your example is not analogous. It is more accurate to say you are an ice cream seller and the only ice cream seller. Their is a thriving market of sellers for donuts and you wish to sell donuts so you give away free donuts with all the ice cream you sale. Not because this is your value proposition, but because you wish to make the donut business untenable for anyone other than the largest ice cream seller. That is antithetical to competition. There should be limits or a prohibition on subsidizing horizontal or vertical business integrations. The limits should be related to the long term consumer value proposition.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > It’s not the bundling that’s the problem, it’s dropping prices of a single product in a single market to destroy competition in that space while staying afloat with VC or other revenue streams/products. The same could be said of open-source software. Most open-source software are clones of commercial products, supported by free labor, and provided at $0. The most successful ones undermine their commercial counterpart and may go so far as to destroy a previously commercially-viable industry. As an example, do you think Linux should be regulated out of existence because its provided at a unsustainably low cost with respect to the competition? If Linux didn't exist, commercial Unix could still be a competitive market. Linux's expansion has also resulted in the deterioration of the consumer OS market, where there had previously been AmigaOS, AtariTOS, VMS, Solaris, BeOS, etc. Linux is also backed by a cartel of commercial supporters that influence what gets added, what gets supported, and what gets kept out. Obviously, these decisions affect what hardware and software consumers would consider purchasing/supporting.
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    You’re right that these OS projects can and do destroy the competitive market for their space, but critically they are both free (as in beer and often as in freedom as well) and open. Their reason for being free is not for market capture to destroy competition and then drive up prices. Amazon bundling a service and providing it at reduced cost to capture the market is neither free nor is it open.
connor11528 4y ago
Bundling per se isn’t a problem. It becomes illegal when a firm uses market power to destroy competitors. If you’re interested in learning more I suggest reading about the Robinson-Patman Act (1936) and Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) as well as the Sherman Act (1890)