3 ms·

(sigh) I think you're a lost cause, but maybe someone else will read this. Monopolies tend to keep growing until they are broken up. Monopolies don't have to c

(sigh) I think you're a lost cause, but maybe someone else will read this. Monopolies tend to keep growing until they are broken up. Monopolies don't have to charge high prices to consumers if they can increase their profits at the expense of sellers. In the case of Amazon, sellers may be authors or publishers who get squeezed. They may be small businesses. They may be big businesses. There is additional harm to the consumer from the distorted marketplace which results. You may not be aware, but Microsoft engaged in a lot of monopolistic activity, including preventing OEMs from including the BEOS operating system as a dual boot operation on systems which shipped with Windows. You may also not be aware that Microsoft tried to get Apple to kill their own browser, a.k.a. "knife the baby". Google it.

WalterBright 3y ago
> Monopolies tend to keep growing until they are broken up No, they don't. Left alone, they grow until they collapse from internal bureaucracy and inefficiency. > Monopolies don't have to charge high prices to consumers if they can increase their profits at the expense of sellers. Microsoft gave away the browser for free. > In the case of Amazon, sellers may be authors or publishers who get squeezed. Resellers normally buy at wholesale prices and sell at retail. The same percentage as Amazon takes for providing retail services. As a small business (Datalight and Zortech days) I am well aware of this. > You may not be aware I am aware. Microsoft failed to stop Linux, and failed at stopping Apple.
- mixmastamyk 3y ago
  Their actions were taken to stop Netscape, and succeeded. Keeping Linux and Be off the desktop succeeded well enough also.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > Their actions were taken to stop Netscape, and succeeded Making a much better product often does that. You'd know what I mean if you were a Netscape user :-/
    - mixmastamyk 3y ago
      They did lots shady things also, belt and suspenders style. Which is the subject here. I started on gopher and Mosaic and Netscape was far ahead and good enough for a long while. Only until IE4 did MS pull away. Of course by IE6 the damage was done and they left the entire industry broken with a moribund dominant browser that took a decade to recover from. Rot in hell.
- nicoburns 3y ago
  > No, they don't. Left alone, they grow until they collapse from internal bureaucracy and inefficiency. Eventually, maybe. But it usually takes far too long and if we speed up the process (and smooth out a boom/bust cycle at the same time) then that seems like a win to me. If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient then we should actively bias the economy towards them rather than allowing big companies to outcompete them purely because they have market power.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment. Small companies are the future big companies. A healthy economy needs both. Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive. > If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient I did not say that. Small companies become big companies by being more efficient than existing big companies. As time goes on, big companies slowly get strangled by bureaucracy and inability to adapt to changing times, and come unglued. But the economy needs their efficiency when they are young.
    - metabagel 3y ago
      > Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive. Nice straw man you got there! The point is to ensure a competitive marketplace where small companies can survive.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        Small companies do well in a free market. They always have. There's no need for a bias towards them.
    - CaptainZapp 3y ago
      > Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment The German Mittelstand[0] companies very much disagree with your assessment. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand
richbell 3y ago
> (sigh) I think you're a lost cause, but maybe someone else will read this. In my experience he will confidently state his existing beliefs as the absolute truth, refuse to provide any supporting evidence, and ignore any evidence to the contrary. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

WalterBright 3y ago

> Monopolies tend to keep growing until they are broken up No, they don't. Left alone, they grow until they collapse from internal bureaucracy and inefficiency. > Monopolies don't have to charge high prices to consumers if they can increase their profits at the expense of sellers. Microsoft gave away the browser for free. > In the case of Amazon, sellers may be authors or publishers who get squeezed. Resellers normally buy at wholesale prices and sell at retail. The same percentage as Amazon takes for providing retail services. As a small business (Datalight and Zortech days) I am well aware of this. > You may not be aware I am aware. Microsoft failed to stop Linux, and failed at stopping Apple.

mixmastamyk 3y ago
Their actions were taken to stop Netscape, and succeeded. Keeping Linux and Be off the desktop succeeded well enough also.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > Their actions were taken to stop Netscape, and succeeded Making a much better product often does that. You'd know what I mean if you were a Netscape user :-/
  - mixmastamyk 3y ago
    They did lots shady things also, belt and suspenders style. Which is the subject here. I started on gopher and Mosaic and Netscape was far ahead and good enough for a long while. Only until IE4 did MS pull away. Of course by IE6 the damage was done and they left the entire industry broken with a moribund dominant browser that took a decade to recover from. Rot in hell.
nicoburns 3y ago
> No, they don't. Left alone, they grow until they collapse from internal bureaucracy and inefficiency. Eventually, maybe. But it usually takes far too long and if we speed up the process (and smooth out a boom/bust cycle at the same time) then that seems like a win to me. If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient then we should actively bias the economy towards them rather than allowing big companies to outcompete them purely because they have market power.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment. Small companies are the future big companies. A healthy economy needs both. Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive. > If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient I did not say that. Small companies become big companies by being more efficient than existing big companies. As time goes on, big companies slowly get strangled by bureaucracy and inability to adapt to changing times, and come unglued. But the economy needs their efficiency when they are young.
  - metabagel 3y ago
    > Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive. Nice straw man you got there! The point is to ensure a competitive marketplace where small companies can survive.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      Small companies do well in a free market. They always have. There's no need for a bias towards them.
  - CaptainZapp 3y ago
    > Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment The German Mittelstand[0] companies very much disagree with your assessment. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand

richbell 3y ago

> (sigh) I think you're a lost cause, but maybe someone else will read this. In my experience he will confidently state his existing beliefs as the absolute truth, refuse to provide any supporting evidence, and ignore any evidence to the contrary. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯