5 ms·
In the Activision case, the FTC ignored the fact that cloud gaming is a very small market and that the high-end console market is dominated by PlayStation, and
by AraceliHarker 3y ago
In the Activision case, the FTC ignored the fact that cloud gaming is a very small market and that the high-end console market is dominated by PlayStation, and filed an injunction to prevent the acquisition on the grounds that "large-scale acquisitions by large companies are not good." As a result, it was natural that they lost the lawsuit.
In the case of the FTC's proposal to split Amazon, the FTC has been collecting evidence to support its claims for the past three years, even before Lina Khan took office as the chair. In addition, Amazon has actually pressured third-party retailers by using its dominant position in online shopping. Therefore, I think the claim is more likely to be upheld than in the Activision case.
- Aloha 3y agoThe only thing I look at with amazon is how you'd break it up? I think its obvious that Amazon is a company with an market position allowing it to exercise unreasonable control over its markets.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> how you'd break it up? For starters, separate AWS from retail/logistics. (There is something loosely analogous to dumping in a high-margin business entering a low-margin trade.)
- MAGZine 3y agoand grocery/fresh food delivery. and then maybe put the streaming services and media production into it's own entity. you could even split kindle+audible out, too.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoWhat part of the streaming market is remotely uncompetitive?
- Aloha 3y agoThats where I'd go first - but I think it's also worthwhile to break the shopping side of the business up to, into amazon eCommerce platform, amazon the seller of goods, Amazon logistics, and amazon fulfillment services as well - that would still leave a bag of leftover parts and businesses.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> it's also worthwhile to break the shopping side of the business up to, into amazon eCommerce platform, amazon the seller of goods, Amazon logistics, and amazon fulfillment services as well It's unclear how sustainable these parts are on their own. The incrementalist move would be to sever the money spigot that is AWS from the lower-margin parts.
- Aloha 3y agoI dont know if Amazons market balance is sufficiently altered by just severing AWS.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> dont know if Amazons market balance is sufficiently altered by just severing AWS I don't either. Hence the caution. The deference to the status quo. It would be a mistake to over-sever and destroy a valuable, value-producing business out of haste. Perhaps the other legs' enduring advantage is merely an artifact of cheap internal capital. Perhaps not.
- Aloha 3y agoMy understanding of antitrust law is that's not a prime consideration.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> that's not a prime consideration I don't have a deep understanding of the law in this matter. But I have seen the sustainability of units spun off as part of merger approvals discussed in court cases. (Counterfactual: Internet Explorer not being a viable standalone business wasn't a valid defence by Microsoft.)
- xNeil 3y agoWhat's the point of that? That solves none of the concerns raised by the FTC (pressuring sellers, setting prices, etc.). They'll have to break up Amazon eCommerce, not AWS.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> What's the point of that? Forces the non-AWS units to compete without cheap capital. > solves none of the concerns raised by the FTC Sure. So far, I will reflect care for their concerns inasmuch the courts do. (“Pressuring sellers” and merely “setting prices” isn’t illegal under current law. Maybe it should be! But that isn’t the FTC’s job when it brings enforcement.)
- zo1 3y agoDoes Amazon "pay" the same prices for AWS resources as everyone else?