3 ms·

Traditional anti-trust (the kind we haven’t seen for at least 30 years now) is about preventing companies from creating monopolies - which requires proactive st

Traditional anti-trust (the kind we haven’t seen for at least 30 years now) is about preventing companies from creating monopolies - which requires proactive steps BEFORE they become a monopoly not when they go to purchase their last competitor. That said, afaik the beats acquisition wasn’t about headphones as much as the streaming service… digital music is a market that apple was the largest player in for a long time (may still be idk?). Rim and microsoft were squeezed out by android, That wasn’t an inevitable outcome - it was the result of google buying android. Google staying entrenched as the top search engine may also have something to do with their ownership of android. You can pick apart some of my examples, sure, but if even one of those is true then of the hundreds (thousands?) of companies acquired by faang you must know that a good percentage of those would be viable stable workplaces… they were purchased usually because of that exact threat! and then repeat that for every industry in the economy with large players in it…

scarface74 4y ago
They were squeezed out by Android that was given away for free. How was a hypothetical Android company going to survive giving its only product away for free? > you must know that a good percentage of those would be viable stable workplaces How many former unicorns that did go public in the last decade are actually profitable today?
- passwordoops 4y ago
  And how many funders, seeing that unicorns are illusions bound for failure in a market where anti trust is enforced, would invest in better and more stable start ups worth actual real-world business plans?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Doesn’t that argue against Android being successful as a stand alone entity? Android had no business model.
    - passwordoops 4y ago
      Exactly it doesn't. Android would have gone away or been a DIY tool. And in a proper anti-trust environment, the app store (which Steve Jobs really resisted anyway) wouldn't have been permitted to act the way it did and probably make the iPhone too restrictive for most people to adopt. So other consumer-driven solutions would have come about. It's not rocket science.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Yes because a DIY tool would have really taken off in the market. And how would it have been better for Android not to exist? And yes it’s not rocket science, that must be why all of the other open source mobile operating systems given away for free have been so successful. Who was going to fund it in your hypothetical world? Yes and in a “proper anti trust world” a manufacturer who at the time had 1% of the mobile operating system would have come under scrutiny because of anti trust. On stage during the launch, SJ said their goal was to capture 1% of the market in the first year. They barely reached that by the time the app store was launched.
        wizzwizz4 4y ago
        > Yes because a DIY tool would have really taken off in the market. *points at Linux, C, algebra, writing* > And how would it have been better for Android not to exist? *points at Boot2Gecko, J2ME, PalmOS* Also, false dichotomy. Android (or something like it) may well have still existed; just, it likely wouldn't've been so dominant (and its ecosystem wouldn't've been so reliant on proprietary Google libraries, which prevent people from running Android programs on non-Google systems). > Yes and in a “proper anti trust world” a manufacturer who at the time had 1% of the mobile operating system would have come under scrutiny because of anti trust. … Yes. In case you're not aware, Apple already had a rather special relationship with telecoms companies at the time; something (e.g.) Handspring lacked. The point of antitrust isn't to break up monopolies after they've already done damage to the market. It's to ensure that market dynamics continue to actually function in the real world – to ensure that the free market at least somewhat resembles a meritocracy.

scarface74 4y ago

They were squeezed out by Android that was given away for free. How was a hypothetical Android company going to survive giving its only product away for free? > you must know that a good percentage of those would be viable stable workplaces How many former unicorns that did go public in the last decade are actually profitable today?

passwordoops 4y ago
And how many funders, seeing that unicorns are illusions bound for failure in a market where anti trust is enforced, would invest in better and more stable start ups worth actual real-world business plans?
- scarface74 4y ago
  Doesn’t that argue against Android being successful as a stand alone entity? Android had no business model.
  - passwordoops 4y ago
    Exactly it doesn't. Android would have gone away or been a DIY tool. And in a proper anti-trust environment, the app store (which Steve Jobs really resisted anyway) wouldn't have been permitted to act the way it did and probably make the iPhone too restrictive for most people to adopt. So other consumer-driven solutions would have come about. It's not rocket science.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Yes because a DIY tool would have really taken off in the market. And how would it have been better for Android not to exist? And yes it’s not rocket science, that must be why all of the other open source mobile operating systems given away for free have been so successful. Who was going to fund it in your hypothetical world? Yes and in a “proper anti trust world” a manufacturer who at the time had 1% of the mobile operating system would have come under scrutiny because of anti trust. On stage during the launch, SJ said their goal was to capture 1% of the market in the first year. They barely reached that by the time the app store was launched.
      - wizzwizz4 4y ago
        > Yes because a DIY tool would have really taken off in the market. *points at Linux, C, algebra, writing* > And how would it have been better for Android not to exist? *points at Boot2Gecko, J2ME, PalmOS* Also, false dichotomy. Android (or something like it) may well have still existed; just, it likely wouldn't've been so dominant (and its ecosystem wouldn't've been so reliant on proprietary Google libraries, which prevent people from running Android programs on non-Google systems). > Yes and in a “proper anti trust world” a manufacturer who at the time had 1% of the mobile operating system would have come under scrutiny because of anti trust. … Yes. In case you're not aware, Apple already had a rather special relationship with telecoms companies at the time; something (e.g.) Handspring lacked. The point of antitrust isn't to break up monopolies after they've already done damage to the market. It's to ensure that market dynamics continue to actually function in the real world – to ensure that the free market at least somewhat resembles a meritocracy.