7 ms·

When elephants fight, the grass suffers.

by Smoosh 3y ago

parineum 3y ago
When companies compete, consumers win.
- donny2018 3y ago
  Unless they conspire in $20B/year search agreements.
  - paholg 3y ago
    That's not competition.
    - bigfudge 3y ago
      And there’s no true Scotsman. This sort of thing is - in practice - what capitalism looks like in the 21st century.
      - achenet 3y ago
        I believe Peter Thiel would say that capitalism and competition are opposites, and the goal of capitalism is monopoly. https://morfene.com/021.pdf https://morfene.com/021.pdf
        TeMPOraL 3y ago
        I'm not sure why people always attribute this observation to Thiel, as if it was something fringe, given how obvious and apparent it is. The goal of a profit-seeking entity is to maximize profit. That is achieved by becoming a monopoly. Competition is just the consequence of multiple entities trying to become a monopoly - there can be only one. This is the motive part of market economy. The energy source. Now, monopolies are obviously bad for society. Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies. This turns the market into an engine. You have constant inflow of upstarts dreaming of riches, fighting each other out to reach the throne of a monopolist, only to be denied it by regulation, and eventually become broken and/or pushed out by the younger followers. Or, via another analogy: the market economy is designed like a donkey chasing a carrot on a stick attached to the animal, while standing on a treadmill. Being surprised that monopoly is the goal of companies is like being surprised the donkey would chase the carrot.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies. Markets are regulated to enable monopolies. Bell would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't the regulation involved in laying copper and Microsoft would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't intellectual property regulation.
        bigfudge 3y ago
        For Bell, presumably the goal was to provide a monopoly to achieve an otherwise difficult goal: universal service. That's certainly the case with the post office in the UK (although now being eroded). For Microsoft: I think that's a weird argument. Plus I think there would have been lots of things pushing towards a single big player for desktop computing in the early-middle days (network effects).
        randomdata 3y ago
        No matter what the goal was, it remains that other players would have jumped in if there wasn't the legal impediments. But such regulation provided a moat in which they were able to build their monopoly. Same goes for Microsoft. Everyone and their brother would have released their own 'Windows' if regulation weren't there to disallow it. Again, that regulation offered a moat which allowed them to establish their monopoly.
        bigfudge 3y ago
        From a long perspective I think the bell monopoly probably served an important purpose and may have been worth it. Not having universal service would have been socially divisive and culturally a problem. I think we need to stop judging things only on (presumed/assumed) economic efficiency. Non monetary values mean regulation is often important. We accept this with environmental and health/safety rules to some degree - I wish we could develop a language to argue for it more in other spheres. On the Ms point.. is your argument that we should have no intellectual property rights for software at all? It seems odd to single out only this example. I’m broadly not in favour of software patents but I’m not clear that they were relevant to MS success anyway. I think you need to make a clearer argument about what regulations we would have forgone for others to really evaluate your case.
        altairTF 3y ago
        If you think capitalism like whe have today, using the government as regulation platforms, sure. If you think capitalism as a system where you free to pursue your capital, not so sure its sustainable to keep a monopoly.
        matwood 3y ago
        I agree. The goal of capitalism is to crush all competition and become a monopoly - and that's ok. The problem is, we should treat the monopoly as the winning end state and then restart the game.
  - jdhendrickson 3y ago
    Or conspire to cap engineer pay and get a slap on the wrist not equivalent to the money they saved, and then continued the collusion.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      In that case Apple and Google are the consumer, though. It is the workers offering the service, who are competing for those capped positions, even while being aware of the situation. The consumer wins.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Why did consumer loose here? This would have definitely had effect on iPhone's cost.
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  Not in the race to the bottom, they don’t
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Up to a point. Afterwards, consumers suffer from garbage products, enshittified services, and under-reported inflation, while companies compete themselves to oblivion.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    You really only see that in tech, and do so because of lack of meaningful competition. You get some sideline competition, yes, but never direct competition. The law doesn't allow you to directly compete. As soon as you try you will be slapped with a patent/copyright/whatever lawsuit that will kill you off before you ever had a chance. Industries where direct competition is allowable do not suffer from these problems.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > Industries where direct competition is allowable do not suffer from these problems. No, they suffer much worse. Haven't you noticed how all goods and services go to shit over the years? This is not an accident, this is competition optimizing out any quality it can get away with removing.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > Haven't you noticed how all goods and services go to shit over the years? No. I can't think of anything I buy that I would want to go back in time with. The quality in my experience has only improved, often dramatically. Those who try to skimp on quality get destroyed by the competition. What are you referring to? The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to – based on what I hear other say, not based on my own buying habits – is things like appliances where manufacturers have really dug deep into computerization so that they can enjoy the same legal moats other tech companies do. But what you are experiencing there is the lack of competition we spoke of earlier.
- fennecbutt 3y ago
  Maybe small companies. But this isn't going to make any major difference to consumers; two bulls can lock horns and yet not budge a millimeter.

When elephants fight, the grass suffers.

by Smoosh 3y ago

When elephants fight, the grass suffers.

parineum 3y ago

When companies compete, consumers win.

donny2018 3y ago
Unless they conspire in $20B/year search agreements.
- paholg 3y ago
  That's not competition.
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    And there’s no true Scotsman. This sort of thing is - in practice - what capitalism looks like in the 21st century.
    - achenet 3y ago
      I believe Peter Thiel would say that capitalism and competition are opposites, and the goal of capitalism is monopoly. https://morfene.com/021.pdf https://morfene.com/021.pdf
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        I'm not sure why people always attribute this observation to Thiel, as if it was something fringe, given how obvious and apparent it is. The goal of a profit-seeking entity is to maximize profit. That is achieved by becoming a monopoly. Competition is just the consequence of multiple entities trying to become a monopoly - there can be only one. This is the motive part of market economy. The energy source. Now, monopolies are obviously bad for society. Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies. This turns the market into an engine. You have constant inflow of upstarts dreaming of riches, fighting each other out to reach the throne of a monopolist, only to be denied it by regulation, and eventually become broken and/or pushed out by the younger followers. Or, via another analogy: the market economy is designed like a donkey chasing a carrot on a stick attached to the animal, while standing on a treadmill. Being surprised that monopoly is the goal of companies is like being surprised the donkey would chase the carrot.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies. Markets are regulated to enable monopolies. Bell would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't the regulation involved in laying copper and Microsoft would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't intellectual property regulation.
        bigfudge 3y ago
        For Bell, presumably the goal was to provide a monopoly to achieve an otherwise difficult goal: universal service. That's certainly the case with the post office in the UK (although now being eroded). For Microsoft: I think that's a weird argument. Plus I think there would have been lots of things pushing towards a single big player for desktop computing in the early-middle days (network effects).
        randomdata 3y ago
        No matter what the goal was, it remains that other players would have jumped in if there wasn't the legal impediments. But such regulation provided a moat in which they were able to build their monopoly. Same goes for Microsoft. Everyone and their brother would have released their own 'Windows' if regulation weren't there to disallow it. Again, that regulation offered a moat which allowed them to establish their monopoly.
        bigfudge 3y ago
        From a long perspective I think the bell monopoly probably served an important purpose and may have been worth it. Not having universal service would have been socially divisive and culturally a problem. I think we need to stop judging things only on (presumed/assumed) economic efficiency. Non monetary values mean regulation is often important. We accept this with environmental and health/safety rules to some degree - I wish we could develop a language to argue for it more in other spheres. On the Ms point.. is your argument that we should have no intellectual property rights for software at all? It seems odd to single out only this example. I’m broadly not in favour of software patents but I’m not clear that they were relevant to MS success anyway. I think you need to make a clearer argument about what regulations we would have forgone for others to really evaluate your case.
      - altairTF 3y ago
        If you think capitalism like whe have today, using the government as regulation platforms, sure. If you think capitalism as a system where you free to pursue your capital, not so sure its sustainable to keep a monopoly.
      - matwood 3y ago
        I agree. The goal of capitalism is to crush all competition and become a monopoly - and that's ok. The problem is, we should treat the monopoly as the winning end state and then restart the game.
- jdhendrickson 3y ago
  Or conspire to cap engineer pay and get a slap on the wrist not equivalent to the money they saved, and then continued the collusion.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    In that case Apple and Google are the consumer, though. It is the workers offering the service, who are competing for those capped positions, even while being aware of the situation. The consumer wins.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Why did consumer loose here? This would have definitely had effect on iPhone's cost.
KineticLensman 3y ago
Not in the race to the bottom, they don’t
TeMPOraL 3y ago
Up to a point. Afterwards, consumers suffer from garbage products, enshittified services, and under-reported inflation, while companies compete themselves to oblivion.
- randomdata 3y ago
  You really only see that in tech, and do so because of lack of meaningful competition. You get some sideline competition, yes, but never direct competition. The law doesn't allow you to directly compete. As soon as you try you will be slapped with a patent/copyright/whatever lawsuit that will kill you off before you ever had a chance. Industries where direct competition is allowable do not suffer from these problems.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > Industries where direct competition is allowable do not suffer from these problems. No, they suffer much worse. Haven't you noticed how all goods and services go to shit over the years? This is not an accident, this is competition optimizing out any quality it can get away with removing.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > Haven't you noticed how all goods and services go to shit over the years? No. I can't think of anything I buy that I would want to go back in time with. The quality in my experience has only improved, often dramatically. Those who try to skimp on quality get destroyed by the competition. What are you referring to? The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to – based on what I hear other say, not based on my own buying habits – is things like appliances where manufacturers have really dug deep into computerization so that they can enjoy the same legal moats other tech companies do. But what you are experiencing there is the lack of competition we spoke of earlier.
fennecbutt 3y ago
Maybe small companies. But this isn't going to make any major difference to consumers; two bulls can lock horns and yet not budge a millimeter.