4 ms·

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

by 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.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > I never talked about monopoly > Where did I ever make the argument about monopoly Oh awesome! So then since you are not arguing that it is a monopoly, you should know that US law would not define this behavior as being illegally anti-competitive, because of that fact alone. Yes, some behavior can still be anti-competitively illegal if it is not a monopoly, but not in this situation! For bundling, in the US, it requires it to be a monopoly for the behavior to be illegal. > My citation was to point to an FTC page on bundling services And bundling is legal if the company is not a monopoly, for the US, and you cited the FTC, which is about the US.

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.
stale2002 4y ago
> I never talked about monopoly > Where did I ever make the argument about monopoly Oh awesome! So then since you are not arguing that it is a monopoly, you should know that US law would not define this behavior as being illegally anti-competitive, because of that fact alone. Yes, some behavior can still be anti-competitively illegal if it is not a monopoly, but not in this situation! For bundling, in the US, it requires it to be a monopoly for the behavior to be illegal. > My citation was to point to an FTC page on bundling services And bundling is legal if the company is not a monopoly, for the US, and you cited the FTC, which is about the US.