3 ms·
It's sort of prescriptive though in that the lawyers say they want to chip away at this. I agree that VCs fund companies at high valuations with the idea that
by nemo44x 3y ago
It's sort of prescriptive though in that the lawyers say they want to chip away at this.
I agree that VCs fund companies at high valuations with the idea that the company will use those funds to hit aggressive growth targets which in turn grows the potentiality of the company. This is often done by subsidizing customers to encourage rapid growth. Selling at a loss during the landgrab phase to capture market.
But it's not sustainable (as the article mentions) and eventually companies have to pivot to profitability. So I have no problem with it. It has never been the case in tech that a company did this long enough to put everyone out of business and then used its acquired monopoly power to gauge customers.
"Your margin is my opportunity" comes to mind and the second a margin is too big then someone will come along and take their piece.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoindeed, it's not sustainable, and with both the aim and effect being the destruction of competition in the market, it's a loss for consumers. I do have a problem with such societal losses.
- nemo44x 3y agoBut where has that actually happened?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agojust to be clear, you're asking me, has a big tech company ever worked to stifle competition? if so, I'm not sure I follow why you're asking: do you believe this has never happened, or do you agree it has, but can't think of a single example?
- nemo44x 3y agoI think I was asking when has it happened that a tech company has used these tactics to put everyone out of business so as to create a monopoly. I feel like that's what the article advocating against. But I'm not sure it's a real problem.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agojust to be clear, in response to a discussion about big tech companies working to stifle competition (which is bad for consumers), you're asking for examples of something different, in which there is a complete monopoly with no competitors whatsoever? forgive me, but such a topic change sounds a bit like an attempt to move the goalposts, to avoid talking about the actual topic, which is big tech working to stifle competition (which is bad for consumers) to avoid confusion, we can explicitly state here that a complete or successful monopoly is not necessary for a company to work to stifle competition (which is bad for consumers), so let's get that out of the way first