4 ms·

I know we are typically against monopolies (pls don’t flame me) but why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important like food/water/medicine?

I know we are typically against monopolies (pls don’t flame me) but why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important like food/water/medicine? I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads, or likewise worrying about some company dominating augmented reality chips. I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology is never required for basic living than about stopping companies from achieving it.

wheats 4y ago
>I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology is never required for basic living Cell phones are a requirement for basic living. That's a large part of why it matters.
pyrophane 4y ago
Personally I care because, as an example, I'm interested in AR, and I wouldn't want that space to be limited to just just the hardware Apple chooses to make, and the use cases and content they deem acceptable.
deafpolygon 4y ago
> why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important because monopolies can manipulate market and prevent a healthy competition. no competition, means prices will be artificially high.
bogwog 4y ago
> I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads The problem is that Google isn't "too good" at selling online ads, they're just the most profitable because their monopoly makes it impossible for better competitors to beat them. That means the world is stuck with Google's mediocre/shitty service even though consumers/the market doesn't want it. Innovation stops happening, quality of life drops, the economy suffers, etc. Apple's big lead in chips right now seems like a great thing, but if the government weren't so shit at regulating competition, we could've had breakthroughs like this a decade ago. Instead innovation is (predictably) moving at a glacial pace. The free market only works when there is competition, so since our economy is based on the free market, it makes sense to write laws that protect it. Monopolies directly contradict with the basic operation of the free market, which is why they're bad. It doesn't matter if it's a life or death situation. Things don't have to be dangerous to your health to be illegal.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "The problem is that Google isn't "too good" at selling online ads..."" Isn't it because they became "too good" at search?
rodgerd 4y ago
> I know we are typically against monopolie HN is not against monopolies. Hacker News ardently cheers on browser and adtech monopolies. HN is against anything that limits surveillance capitalism.

wheats 4y ago

>I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology is never required for basic living Cell phones are a requirement for basic living. That's a large part of why it matters.

pyrophane 4y ago

Personally I care because, as an example, I'm interested in AR, and I wouldn't want that space to be limited to just just the hardware Apple chooses to make, and the use cases and content they deem acceptable.

deafpolygon 4y ago

> why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important because monopolies can manipulate market and prevent a healthy competition. no competition, means prices will be artificially high.

bogwog 4y ago

> I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads The problem is that Google isn't "too good" at selling online ads, they're just the most profitable because their monopoly makes it impossible for better competitors to beat them. That means the world is stuck with Google's mediocre/shitty service even though consumers/the market doesn't want it. Innovation stops happening, quality of life drops, the economy suffers, etc. Apple's big lead in chips right now seems like a great thing, but if the government weren't so shit at regulating competition, we could've had breakthroughs like this a decade ago. Instead innovation is (predictably) moving at a glacial pace. The free market only works when there is competition, so since our economy is based on the free market, it makes sense to write laws that protect it. Monopolies directly contradict with the basic operation of the free market, which is why they're bad. It doesn't matter if it's a life or death situation. Things don't have to be dangerous to your health to be illegal.

themitigating 4y ago
"The problem is that Google isn't "too good" at selling online ads..."" Isn't it because they became "too good" at search?

rodgerd 4y ago

> I know we are typically against monopolie HN is not against monopolies. Hacker News ardently cheers on browser and adtech monopolies. HN is against anything that limits surveillance capitalism.