4 ms·

This is not an "anti-competitive mode" This is called a bundle On the third-party side, we have: Compute + aws compute margin + network + aws network margin +

This is not an "anti-competitive mode" This is called a bundle On the third-party side, we have: Compute + aws compute margin + network + aws network margin + storage + aws storage margin + software management + third-party margin AWS is able to lower each margin parts, because they know you take a bundle Why would you even think doing a cheaper but overall equivalent service in someone else's infrastructure .. THAT does not make any sense.

sitkack 4y ago
They lower the price because they own the whole pie? Sounds anti competitive to me. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- scarface74 4y ago
  You did see the part about it only being relevant if the company is a “monopolist”? There are 5 cloud providers in the US and according to Jassy (my skip * 7 manager) in public statements, less than 5% of all IT spin is on any cloud provider. Did you even read your own citation?
  - sitkack 4y ago
    > Did you even read your own citation? -1, violates hn discussion guidelines. I did. AWS is being anti-competitive, this isn't a board game with narrow definitions. EU Monopolist or Chicago School Monopolist? I won't respond.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      It violates the HN guidelines to ask did you read the submitted article. You posted your own citation they didn’t say what you seem to think it says. “Words mean Things”. A “monopoly” isn’t something that have 4 major competitors and when another alternative that 95% of all IT spend is not on any major cloud provider. And just because you don’t like the legal definition doesn’t mean it isn’t the real definition. And since the citation is from the American Federal Trade Commission. The EU definition is meaningless.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      The point being that you have misunderstood what a monopolist is, even according to your own source. No, it is not a singular company, but yes it does require significant market power. If there are 5 major cloud providers then this is pretty strong evidence against having significant market power, and yes the FTC definition and US court systems agrees with this definition, and disagrees with you.
      - sitkack 4y ago
        I never talked about monopoly, I talked about anti-competitive behavior. You and scarface74 have put words in my mouth and twisted the conversation to meet your narrative. AWS behavior is anti-consumer, and puts the house brand at an unfair advantage. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... From the link above > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. Where did I ever make the argument about monopoly? My citation was to point to an FTC page on bundling services, the way AWS "bundles" is the same effect. They charge everyone the premium and then remove it if they buy the house brand. This isn't shopping for a brake job, AWS already has an egress moat. > If there are 5 major cloud providers then this is pretty strong evidence against having significant market power, and yes the FTC definition and US court systems agrees with this definition, and disagrees with you. This doesn't hold. AWS already has leverage over their customers and the cost of leaving to another cloud provider (which probably does something similar) is not worth the remedy, exactly the kind of behavior the FTC would be looking for. I'll make my joke more clear next time. What is the speed of an unladen monopolist? EU Monopolist or Chicago? Your comment comes off as demeaning and uncivil. It doesn't appear that you discuss in good fair.
        scarface74 4y ago
        > I talked about anti-competitive behavior. Literally anything that any company does to try to compete can be labeled as anti-competitive. That’s why there are real lawyers… > My citation was to point to an FTC page on bundling services, the way AWS "bundles" is the same effect So now are you saying that all bundles are illegal even though your citation says just the opposite? > This doesn't hold. AWS already has leverage over their customers and the cost of leaving to another cloud provider (which probably does something similar) is not worth the remedy, exactly the kind of behavior the FTC would be looking for. So what do you think the “FTC would be looking for” when AWS and all of the cloud providers combine account for a minuscule amount of IT spend? > EU Monopolist or Chicago? The EU take is completely irrelevant - especially when citing the FTC. > Your comment comes off as demeaning and uncivil. It doesn't appear that you discuss in good fair. Honestly, you just got called out because your citation does nothing to bolster your argument and you’re just really throwing things against the wall.

sitkack 4y ago

They lower the price because they own the whole pie? Sounds anti competitive to me. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

scarface74 4y ago
You did see the part about it only being relevant if the company is a “monopolist”? There are 5 cloud providers in the US and according to Jassy (my skip * 7 manager) in public statements, less than 5% of all IT spin is on any cloud provider. Did you even read your own citation?
- sitkack 4y ago
  > Did you even read your own citation? -1, violates hn discussion guidelines. I did. AWS is being anti-competitive, this isn't a board game with narrow definitions. EU Monopolist or Chicago School Monopolist? I won't respond.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It violates the HN guidelines to ask did you read the submitted article. You posted your own citation they didn’t say what you seem to think it says. “Words mean Things”. A “monopoly” isn’t something that have 4 major competitors and when another alternative that 95% of all IT spend is not on any major cloud provider. And just because you don’t like the legal definition doesn’t mean it isn’t the real definition. And since the citation is from the American Federal Trade Commission. The EU definition is meaningless.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    The point being that you have misunderstood what a monopolist is, even according to your own source. No, it is not a singular company, but yes it does require significant market power. If there are 5 major cloud providers then this is pretty strong evidence against having significant market power, and yes the FTC definition and US court systems agrees with this definition, and disagrees with you.
    - sitkack 4y ago
      I never talked about monopoly, I talked about anti-competitive behavior. You and scarface74 have put words in my mouth and twisted the conversation to meet your narrative. AWS behavior is anti-consumer, and puts the house brand at an unfair advantage. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... From the link above > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. Where did I ever make the argument about monopoly? My citation was to point to an FTC page on bundling services, the way AWS "bundles" is the same effect. They charge everyone the premium and then remove it if they buy the house brand. This isn't shopping for a brake job, AWS already has an egress moat. > If there are 5 major cloud providers then this is pretty strong evidence against having significant market power, and yes the FTC definition and US court systems agrees with this definition, and disagrees with you. This doesn't hold. AWS already has leverage over their customers and the cost of leaving to another cloud provider (which probably does something similar) is not worth the remedy, exactly the kind of behavior the FTC would be looking for. I'll make my joke more clear next time. What is the speed of an unladen monopolist? EU Monopolist or Chicago? Your comment comes off as demeaning and uncivil. It doesn't appear that you discuss in good fair.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        > I talked about anti-competitive behavior. Literally anything that any company does to try to compete can be labeled as anti-competitive. That’s why there are real lawyers… > My citation was to point to an FTC page on bundling services, the way AWS "bundles" is the same effect So now are you saying that all bundles are illegal even though your citation says just the opposite? > This doesn't hold. AWS already has leverage over their customers and the cost of leaving to another cloud provider (which probably does something similar) is not worth the remedy, exactly the kind of behavior the FTC would be looking for. So what do you think the “FTC would be looking for” when AWS and all of the cloud providers combine account for a minuscule amount of IT spend? > EU Monopolist or Chicago? The EU take is completely irrelevant - especially when citing the FTC. > Your comment comes off as demeaning and uncivil. It doesn't appear that you discuss in good fair. Honestly, you just got called out because your citation does nothing to bolster your argument and you’re just really throwing things against the wall.