3 ms·

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 ha

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.
  - mrkurt 4y ago
    You're not really making coherent points here. No one is arguing that vertical monopolization corners a market on components. When Apple bought Authentec, they increased their market power and reduced the market power of competitors. As an independent company, Authentec could sell to Apple AND Apple's competitors. Apple obviously won't sell components to their competitors. They were incentivized to purchase Authentect to restrict competition.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So no one is arguing that a “vertical monopoly” corners the market. In that case, what are they monopolizing? > When Apple bought Authentec, they increased their market power and reduced the market power of competitors. The existence proof is that there were fingerprint authentication methods before and after the acquisition. Who exactly did they hurt? > As an independent company, Authentec could sell to Apple AND Apple's competitors. Apple obviously won't sell components to their competitors. They were incentivized to purchase Authentect to restrict competition. Well if that was the purpose - to prevent competitors from having fingerprint sensors - they did a horrible job.
    - shagie 4y ago
      In that model, would it be reasonable for another agency (company, PE, billionaire with an axe to grind) to come along and buy them and then raise the prices to rent seek on Apple? You appear to be arguing that larger companies shouldn't be able to secure their supply chain and instead be forced to follow the whims of the market as companies go in and out of business forcing the larger company to either (a) build it in house or (b) keep redesigning every time something changes.
      - 4y ago
mrkurt 4y ago
Ok, well, we're not talking about the same stuff here so I'm not sure it's worth going back and forth. We can just continue to be on different sides of the antitrust issue/

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.
- mrkurt 4y ago
  You're not really making coherent points here. No one is arguing that vertical monopolization corners a market on components. When Apple bought Authentec, they increased their market power and reduced the market power of competitors. As an independent company, Authentec could sell to Apple AND Apple's competitors. Apple obviously won't sell components to their competitors. They were incentivized to purchase Authentect to restrict competition.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So no one is arguing that a “vertical monopoly” corners the market. In that case, what are they monopolizing? > When Apple bought Authentec, they increased their market power and reduced the market power of competitors. The existence proof is that there were fingerprint authentication methods before and after the acquisition. Who exactly did they hurt? > As an independent company, Authentec could sell to Apple AND Apple's competitors. Apple obviously won't sell components to their competitors. They were incentivized to purchase Authentect to restrict competition. Well if that was the purpose - to prevent competitors from having fingerprint sensors - they did a horrible job.
  - shagie 4y ago
    In that model, would it be reasonable for another agency (company, PE, billionaire with an axe to grind) to come along and buy them and then raise the prices to rent seek on Apple? You appear to be arguing that larger companies shouldn't be able to secure their supply chain and instead be forced to follow the whims of the market as companies go in and out of business forcing the larger company to either (a) build it in house or (b) keep redesigning every time something changes.
    - 4y ago

mrkurt 4y ago

Ok, well, we're not talking about the same stuff here so I'm not sure it's worth going back and forth. We can just continue to be on different sides of the antitrust issue/