4 ms·

I don't mind startups failing. I would prefer that startups fail. I would prefer big companies fail. It's healthy for companies to die. Apple and Amazon are mo

by mrkurt 4y ago

I don't mind startups failing. I would prefer that startups fail. I would prefer big companies fail. It's healthy for companies to die. Apple and Amazon are more of a vertical integration problem. They expand their market power by monopolizing the vertical supply chain. Microsoft acquires companies to increase their market power. Skype, GitHub, LinkedIn, now Activision.

fallingknife 4y ago
Monopolizing a vertical supply chain isn't even a concept that makes sense. The point is that with a monopoly customers have only one purchasing option. This condition does not exist when a company integrates vertically.
- mrkurt 4y ago
  You're arguing the semantics of a monopoly, but you should just mentally replace the word "monopoly" with "market power". When Apple buys components from a vendor, they have less market power. When they build their own components, they have more market power. Both Apple and Amazon shipped their own ARM chips. This increased their market power. Because they're the only companies with access to those chips. Meanwhile, independent ARM vendors go out of business about once every 3 months because the biggest companies using ARM aren't part of their addressable market. Which means small companies have limited access to ARM CPUs. When Amazon builds their own delivery company, they increase their market power. When they buy from Fedex and UPS, they decrease their market power. And, when they do their own deliveries, they limit competitors market power. You can be fine with all of this. Those of us who are interested in competitive markets worry about it a lot. You don't have to be worried about competitive markets, though. It's totally valid to not think increased competition is a good thing. There is a lot of nuance here. If you're stuck on the word monopoly, I don't think you're going to really hear the things antitrust folks have to say.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > You're arguing the semantics of a monopoly, Yes “words mean things”. > When Apple buys components from a vendor, they have less market power. When they build their own components, they have more market power So now you’re saying a company shouldn’t be allowed to build and design their own components? Doesn’t it help competition that Apple, Microsoft, Google, Qualcomm, and MediaTek among others are creating and modifying their own processors? > Which means small companies have limited access to ARM CPUs. Any company can buy an ARM processor from Qualcomm and MediaTek. Have you looked at all of the phone manufacturers who sell in China and India and even the US? > Those of us who are interested in competitive markets worry about it a lot. You don't have to be worried about competitive markets, though. It's totally valid to not think increased competition is a good thing. Every market you mentioned has a competitor that third parties can go to - ARM chips, delivery companies etc.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Vertical integration doesn't decrease competition, it increases it. If there are N companies in a market, and a company that purchases from one decides to vertically integrate.and enter the market, now there are N+1.
    - mrkurt 4y ago
      Only if they sell into the market. Almost no one who vertically integrates competes in the market they just shook. You can't get Amazon to ship things for you, so they don't compete with Fedex and UPS. You can't by an M1 chip from Apple. Vertical integration is all about shrinking markets, not adding to them.
      - shagie 4y ago
        So what would your market look like? What can Apple make? What must Apple buy from other suppliers? How much are investors allowed to punish Apple's stock price (like they are currently encountering https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2023/01/08/why-is-apple-stock-still-falling-production-problems-still-driving-this-stock-down/?sh=60b86b113032 https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2023/01/08/why-is-apple-sto... ) or can they buy everything a company produces? Are others allowed to buy a company that only has Apple as a client and raise the prices? Can Amazon work at improving distribution center efficiency with technology that they create? Or must they buy it from someone else? Must Google create a business unit to sell its highly customized routers?
scarface74 4y ago
Yes because Skype and GitHub are market leaders and it’s really hard to change your git origin. How is Apple “monopolizing the vertical supply chain” while having only 13% of the global cell phone market?
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > Yes because Skype and GitHub are market leaders and it’s really hard to change your git origin. Yes, for exactly those reasons. Have you actually tried getting everyone on a team to change their git origin? And that's before mentioning the other stuff you have to migrate: the issue tracker, the CI pipeline…
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Yes, You tell everyone to change the git set-origin. Hardly anyone uses GitHub’s rudimentary issue tracker and reconfiguring a CI/CD pipeline is child’s play unless you use GitHub actions and very few if any large companies use GitHub actions.
- shagie 4y ago
  One could argue that they are purchasing companies to incorporate them into the company's product directly rather than relying on a 3rd party vendor to supply it. Two examples: AuthenTech and Kiva https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/scott-moody https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/scott-moody https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/mick-mountz https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/mick-mountz The argument (I believe) is for leaving those companies as stand alone and having Apple and Amazon rely upon them not going bankrupt or getting purchased by some other competitor and disrupting their own company. You've seen that happen before - BigCo is using a 3rd party vendor, someone buys it and then turns around and starts charging BigCo lots of money. To prevent that from happening, BigCo should have bought the company when it started using it (if possible) to prevent that disruption in its systems, products, or services.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    And because Apple bought Authentec, it cornered the market on fingerprint base authentication…oh wait.

by mrkurt 4y ago

fallingknife 4y ago

Monopolizing a vertical supply chain isn't even a concept that makes sense. The point is that with a monopoly customers have only one purchasing option. This condition does not exist when a company integrates vertically.

mrkurt 4y ago
You're arguing the semantics of a monopoly, but you should just mentally replace the word "monopoly" with "market power". When Apple buys components from a vendor, they have less market power. When they build their own components, they have more market power. Both Apple and Amazon shipped their own ARM chips. This increased their market power. Because they're the only companies with access to those chips. Meanwhile, independent ARM vendors go out of business about once every 3 months because the biggest companies using ARM aren't part of their addressable market. Which means small companies have limited access to ARM CPUs. When Amazon builds their own delivery company, they increase their market power. When they buy from Fedex and UPS, they decrease their market power. And, when they do their own deliveries, they limit competitors market power. You can be fine with all of this. Those of us who are interested in competitive markets worry about it a lot. You don't have to be worried about competitive markets, though. It's totally valid to not think increased competition is a good thing. There is a lot of nuance here. If you're stuck on the word monopoly, I don't think you're going to really hear the things antitrust folks have to say.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > You're arguing the semantics of a monopoly, Yes “words mean things”. > When Apple buys components from a vendor, they have less market power. When they build their own components, they have more market power So now you’re saying a company shouldn’t be allowed to build and design their own components? Doesn’t it help competition that Apple, Microsoft, Google, Qualcomm, and MediaTek among others are creating and modifying their own processors? > Which means small companies have limited access to ARM CPUs. Any company can buy an ARM processor from Qualcomm and MediaTek. Have you looked at all of the phone manufacturers who sell in China and India and even the US? > Those of us who are interested in competitive markets worry about it a lot. You don't have to be worried about competitive markets, though. It's totally valid to not think increased competition is a good thing. Every market you mentioned has a competitor that third parties can go to - ARM chips, delivery companies etc.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Vertical integration doesn't decrease competition, it increases it. If there are N companies in a market, and a company that purchases from one decides to vertically integrate.and enter the market, now there are N+1.
  - mrkurt 4y ago
    Only if they sell into the market. Almost no one who vertically integrates competes in the market they just shook. You can't get Amazon to ship things for you, so they don't compete with Fedex and UPS. You can't by an M1 chip from Apple. Vertical integration is all about shrinking markets, not adding to them.
    - shagie 4y ago
      So what would your market look like? What can Apple make? What must Apple buy from other suppliers? How much are investors allowed to punish Apple's stock price (like they are currently encountering https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2023/01/08/why-is-apple-stock-still-falling-production-problems-still-driving-this-stock-down/?sh=60b86b113032 https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2023/01/08/why-is-apple-sto... ) or can they buy everything a company produces? Are others allowed to buy a company that only has Apple as a client and raise the prices? Can Amazon work at improving distribution center efficiency with technology that they create? Or must they buy it from someone else? Must Google create a business unit to sell its highly customized routers?

scarface74 4y ago

Yes because Skype and GitHub are market leaders and it’s really hard to change your git origin. How is Apple “monopolizing the vertical supply chain” while having only 13% of the global cell phone market?

wizzwizz4 4y ago
> Yes because Skype and GitHub are market leaders and it’s really hard to change your git origin. Yes, for exactly those reasons. Have you actually tried getting everyone on a team to change their git origin? And that's before mentioning the other stuff you have to migrate: the issue tracker, the CI pipeline…
- scarface74 4y ago
  Yes, You tell everyone to change the git set-origin. Hardly anyone uses GitHub’s rudimentary issue tracker and reconfiguring a CI/CD pipeline is child’s play unless you use GitHub actions and very few if any large companies use GitHub actions.
shagie 4y ago
One could argue that they are purchasing companies to incorporate them into the company's product directly rather than relying on a 3rd party vendor to supply it. Two examples: AuthenTech and Kiva https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/scott-moody https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/scott-moody https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/mick-mountz https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/mick-mountz The argument (I believe) is for leaving those companies as stand alone and having Apple and Amazon rely upon them not going bankrupt or getting purchased by some other competitor and disrupting their own company. You've seen that happen before - BigCo is using a 3rd party vendor, someone buys it and then turns around and starts charging BigCo lots of money. To prevent that from happening, BigCo should have bought the company when it started using it (if possible) to prevent that disruption in its systems, products, or services.
- scarface74 4y ago
  And because Apple bought Authentec, it cornered the market on fingerprint base authentication…oh wait.