5 ms·

>Apple, Google, Amazon and maybe even Microsoft What would be the economic and geopolitical consequences of the US breaking up the only US companies that are g

by 0xDEF 3y ago

>Apple, Google, Amazon and maybe even Microsoft What would be the economic and geopolitical consequences of the US breaking up the only US companies that are globally competitive? Chinese giants will outcompete the smaller less competitive remnants after these kind of corporate breakups.

nashashmi 3y ago
evaluation of Chinese companies will be more stringent than local companies against the rules of monopolies.
mmaunder 3y ago
That’s a strong argument for nationalization of large businesses. Competition fosters innovation, and monopoly kills it. Competition with larger companies gave birth to Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft.
- 0xDEF 3y ago
  Neither Apple, Google, Amazon, nor Microsoft have a systemic monopoly.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    That must be why you can get Windows laptops that run fast, silent, cool with great battery life and integrates well with their phones, watches and tablets. And let’s not talk about those great fast Android phones that are still getting security updates a decade later…
    - amadeuspagel 3y ago
      > fast, silent, cool with great battery life Exactly. I forgot to mention the competition between chip manufacturers that makes this possible, which obviously leads to much better chips then a monopoly like Apple could produce.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        You realize I was being sarcastic right?
        amadeuspagel 3y ago
        Yes, but I did not realize that you did not realize that I was being sarcastic.
- astrange 3y ago
  Apple, Google and Microsoft were all in new early markets when they started up. They weren't really competing with giant successful companies.
23B1 3y ago
Your comment presupposes that bigger = better. This may or may not be true, but size is not necessarily a predictor of victory, especially in warfare. History is rife with smaller belligerents defeating larger ones through innovation/force multiplication/asymmetrical warfare. I think it's fair to say that an oligopoly stifles innovation; you can see it in how expensive and slow companies like Lockheed, Boeing, or BAE are when it comes to providing matériel needed by actual warfighters. I don't think this is an either-or scenario – you need both – but saying that we can only be globally competitive on the backs of megacorporations is incorrect.
bogwog 3y ago
TikTok is an example of a successful Chinese company that is out-competing US social media giants. If they were a US company, Facebook or Google would've bought and killed them when they were an early startup. American big tech companies aren't competitive in anything. They're entrenched monopolies. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon products are all shit, but users don't really have any other choice. If we break them up, it will create market opportunity for actual innovation in the US. The question is whether we actually have the talent and expertise to innovate once you remove all of the current artificial barriers (big tech monopolies, walled gardens, etc). I think we do. At least more than China, where most of their big tech companies seem to be built on stolen and cloned tech.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > They're entrenched monopolies. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon products are all shit, but users don't really have any other choice. If their products are all shit, how are they able to maintain their monopolies? Why hasn't a competitor started up that offered a better product?
  - bogwog 3y ago
    Is this question meant to be rhetorical, or are you genuinely asking? Because the answer is simple: that's how monopolies work. Monopolies don't need to compete to succeed, they just need some way to exclude competitors. All of those companies have multiple ways to do that for most/all of their products.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      > Is this question meant to be rhetorical, or are you genuinely asking? It's a little of both to be honest. I disagree that their products are shit (in fact some of their products I think are really damn good), and I don't see how short of coercion with government or a private army or something that you could maintain a monopoly with products that suck. But I genuinely think I might be missing something here. Maybe a better question is, how are they able to maintain their monopolies with shit products? Huge barriers to entry combined with quick acquisition of competitors? That's mostly how Rockefeller did it in the 19th century, but that's not a good parallel either because he didn't have a shit product.

by 0xDEF 3y ago

nashashmi 3y ago

evaluation of Chinese companies will be more stringent than local companies against the rules of monopolies.

mmaunder 3y ago

That’s a strong argument for nationalization of large businesses. Competition fosters innovation, and monopoly kills it. Competition with larger companies gave birth to Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft.

0xDEF 3y ago
Neither Apple, Google, Amazon, nor Microsoft have a systemic monopoly.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
[flagged]
- scarface_74 3y ago
  That must be why you can get Windows laptops that run fast, silent, cool with great battery life and integrates well with their phones, watches and tablets. And let’s not talk about those great fast Android phones that are still getting security updates a decade later…
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    > fast, silent, cool with great battery life Exactly. I forgot to mention the competition between chip manufacturers that makes this possible, which obviously leads to much better chips then a monopoly like Apple could produce.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      You realize I was being sarcastic right?
      - amadeuspagel 3y ago
        Yes, but I did not realize that you did not realize that I was being sarcastic.
astrange 3y ago
Apple, Google and Microsoft were all in new early markets when they started up. They weren't really competing with giant successful companies.

23B1 3y ago

Your comment presupposes that bigger = better. This may or may not be true, but size is not necessarily a predictor of victory, especially in warfare. History is rife with smaller belligerents defeating larger ones through innovation/force multiplication/asymmetrical warfare. I think it's fair to say that an oligopoly stifles innovation; you can see it in how expensive and slow companies like Lockheed, Boeing, or BAE are when it comes to providing matériel needed by actual warfighters. I don't think this is an either-or scenario – you need both – but saying that we can only be globally competitive on the backs of megacorporations is incorrect.

bogwog 3y ago

TikTok is an example of a successful Chinese company that is out-competing US social media giants. If they were a US company, Facebook or Google would've bought and killed them when they were an early startup. American big tech companies aren't competitive in anything. They're entrenched monopolies. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon products are all shit, but users don't really have any other choice. If we break them up, it will create market opportunity for actual innovation in the US. The question is whether we actually have the talent and expertise to innovate once you remove all of the current artificial barriers (big tech monopolies, walled gardens, etc). I think we do. At least more than China, where most of their big tech companies seem to be built on stolen and cloned tech.

freedomben 3y ago
> They're entrenched monopolies. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon products are all shit, but users don't really have any other choice. If their products are all shit, how are they able to maintain their monopolies? Why hasn't a competitor started up that offered a better product?
- bogwog 3y ago
  Is this question meant to be rhetorical, or are you genuinely asking? Because the answer is simple: that's how monopolies work. Monopolies don't need to compete to succeed, they just need some way to exclude competitors. All of those companies have multiple ways to do that for most/all of their products.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > Is this question meant to be rhetorical, or are you genuinely asking? It's a little of both to be honest. I disagree that their products are shit (in fact some of their products I think are really damn good), and I don't see how short of coercion with government or a private army or something that you could maintain a monopoly with products that suck. But I genuinely think I might be missing something here. Maybe a better question is, how are they able to maintain their monopolies with shit products? Huge barriers to entry combined with quick acquisition of competitors? That's mostly how Rockefeller did it in the 19th century, but that's not a good parallel either because he didn't have a shit product.