6 ms·

The FTC just needs a new law based on anti-trust that says multi billion dollar companies can't buy other billion dollar companies. Period. Name the last time

The FTC just needs a new law based on anti-trust that says multi billion dollar companies can't buy other billion dollar companies. Period. Name the last time a multi-billion dollar merger worked for consumers.

Workaccount2 3y ago
It doesn't really, but this leads to a situation where leadership kneecaps growth or hastily sells when around a $999 million valuation.
- bearjaws 3y ago
  I can assure you, every founder I've worked with would go public before kneecapping growth or value. It's not like when you sell your company you actually get all your equity as cash, you are certainly still working at your company for a year or more afterwards, with performance incentive stock options based on growth...
  - mbesto 3y ago
    > company you actually get all your equity as cash But many times you get a significant portion, enough that many founders can simply coast and it doesn't matter. > you are certainly still working at your company for a year or more afterwards, with performance incentive stock The meme of founders who sell their companies to Google and just sit there and do nothing has some truth to it. Btw - when you go public you now have a very different set of "still working at your company" set of challenges and probably far worse with much more public scrutiny. You now answer to securities analysts, shareholders, lawyers, etc.
robin_reala 3y ago
Beats. Pretty shitty before the merger, much better quality afterwards.
- bearjaws 3y ago
  I'd argue it's about the same, maybe slightly stronger focus on build quality. Bought the studio buds plus and they don't hold a candle to Airpods. Gee I wonder why Beats doesn't have a direct competitors to Airpods?
  - robin_reala 3y ago
    Before the Apple acquisition Beats were ridiculed as being overly bassy and fashion focused. Post Apple acquisition they’ve at least gained a comparative reputation for sound quality. And they fill the sports segment of Apple’s lineup that Apple themselves don’t want to.
xd1936 3y ago
Github has been thriving under Microsoft with all of those Azure resources.
- bearjaws 3y ago
  I give it 5 years max until enshittification takes over. Once they reach parity with CircleCi & GitLab, it will just be continual price increases. Bitbucket is basically a non-competitor and Gitlab is focused on reaching profitability, something Github really doesn't have to worry about.
HWR_14 3y ago
TMobile buying Sprint seems to have created a solid 3rd competitor in the cell phone space.
- pnutjam 3y ago
  Three? It's basically just t-mo and vz.
  - sp332 3y ago
    AT&T.
- bearjaws 3y ago
  Shouldn't have ATT and VZW in the first place... Should be much smaller, in fact ATT was already broken up but then FTC policy changed. Bit more complicated due to spectrum licensing, but theres a way to make it work with more carrier options.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    ATT is still pretty broken up. Its components turned into Verizon, QWest and ATT. The vertical integration (every US telecom device before the breakup was physically manufactured by an ATT subsidiary) is gone. Meanwhile, I don't see how having more than 3 companies building cellular infrastructure helps at all. Regulated access for MVNOs seems to fill the competition niche.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Disney/Pixar is often considered a good one. It’s still too recent but many are optimistic about Microsoft/Activision. Also many bank acquisitions that prevent failure are obviously good.
- user3939382 3y ago
  To play devil’s advocate: Disney has had a lot of problems lately and there’s a very plausible alternate reality where Pixar staying independent forced Disney to do better.
- bearjaws 3y ago
  The last 5 Pixar films are all flops, and all signs point to leadership at Disney interfering with the creative process. > Also many bank acquisitions that prevent failure are obviously good. We wouldn't worry about bank failure if they weren't so big in the first place?
  - tzs 3y ago
    > The last 5 Pixar films are all flops, and all signs point to leadership at Disney interfering with the creative process. 4 were flops in the sense that their theatrical releases did not cover their budgets, but only 1 of those (Lightyear) was because audiences didn't want to see it (and so could be blamed on the creative process). The other 3 did not cover their budgets with their theatrical releases because they didn't have domestic theater releases (other than very short runs in a handful of theaters probably to preserve eligibility for awards) and their foreign releases were in a much smaller number of countries than other Pixar movies. Domestically, and in countries that had Disney+, they went straight to streaming. In reverse order: • Elemental made nearly $500 million in its theatrical run. In no universe can that be considered to be a flop. • Turning Red did not have a domestic theatrical release, and a fairly limited foreign release. It was only in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Türkiye, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam. In those countries in which both Turning Red and Toy Story 4 (the last Pixar movie before COVID started tanking box office) Turning Red earned about half of what Toy Story 4 did. If we assume that ratio would have been similar in the countries Toy Story 4 was in that did not get Turning Red (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela) we get that Turning Red should have made around $420 million. It was the second most watched streaming film of 2022. • Similar for Luca. It's theatrical release was Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Hungary, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Türkiye, Ukraine, and United Arab Emirates. In those countries that had both Luca and Toy Story 4, Luca earned $39 million and Toy Story 4 earned $70 million. That extrapolates to a full theatrical release for Luca would have been around $560 million. It was the most watched streaming film of 2021. • Soul's theatrical release was Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Hungary, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia/CIS, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam. I don't have the Toy Story 4 comparison for that one, but its total foreign box office was about 2.4x that of Luca, suggesting that had it gotten a full theatrical release it would have have done quite a bit north of $600 million. Soul's release timing made it so its peak streaming straddled the year boundary so it didn't get near top spots on yearly streaming lists but was on top of weekly or monthly lists at the end of 2020 and start of 2021.
lebean 3y ago
Walmart buying cheap crappy TV brand is antitrust in a world that has many cheap crappy TV brands? At least the Microsoft and IE thing made some sense, it's not like we're hurting for choice here.
- bearjaws 3y ago
  Clearly worked enough with Onn brand for them to keep consolidating. Just at the surface level this hurts: 1. Other brands selling TVs in Walmart. 2. Advertisement space will be cheaper for Walmart when they advertise on their own TVs, toeing the line of anti-trust. 3. Companies that offer advertising and data aggregation across TV brands will now have fewer brands to sell on. 4. Fewer consumer TV brands in general. 5. Walmart can adopt a loss lead model, they don't need to actually make money on the TV, they can make it up in 2-3 other places. Similar to AWS and Amazon.
  - doublepg23 3y ago
    Just to be clear though, this will make the TVs cheaper for consumers?
  - PolygonSheep 3y ago
    Was Onn ever a "real" brand? I had always assumed it was just a private label brand.
  - lebean 3y ago
    We've come a long way since fighting oil, metal, sugar and meat monopolies and cartels. Now we're worried about Walmart buying TV brands. Really puts the past century into perspective for me.
keeganpoppen 3y ago
“let’s make an arbitrary rule because $s with a B in front are Bad”

Workaccount2 3y ago

It doesn't really, but this leads to a situation where leadership kneecaps growth or hastily sells when around a $999 million valuation.

bearjaws 3y ago
I can assure you, every founder I've worked with would go public before kneecapping growth or value. It's not like when you sell your company you actually get all your equity as cash, you are certainly still working at your company for a year or more afterwards, with performance incentive stock options based on growth...
- mbesto 3y ago
  > company you actually get all your equity as cash But many times you get a significant portion, enough that many founders can simply coast and it doesn't matter. > you are certainly still working at your company for a year or more afterwards, with performance incentive stock The meme of founders who sell their companies to Google and just sit there and do nothing has some truth to it. Btw - when you go public you now have a very different set of "still working at your company" set of challenges and probably far worse with much more public scrutiny. You now answer to securities analysts, shareholders, lawyers, etc.

robin_reala 3y ago

Beats. Pretty shitty before the merger, much better quality afterwards.

bearjaws 3y ago
I'd argue it's about the same, maybe slightly stronger focus on build quality. Bought the studio buds plus and they don't hold a candle to Airpods. Gee I wonder why Beats doesn't have a direct competitors to Airpods?
- robin_reala 3y ago
  Before the Apple acquisition Beats were ridiculed as being overly bassy and fashion focused. Post Apple acquisition they’ve at least gained a comparative reputation for sound quality. And they fill the sports segment of Apple’s lineup that Apple themselves don’t want to.

xd1936 3y ago

Github has been thriving under Microsoft with all of those Azure resources.

bearjaws 3y ago
I give it 5 years max until enshittification takes over. Once they reach parity with CircleCi & GitLab, it will just be continual price increases. Bitbucket is basically a non-competitor and Gitlab is focused on reaching profitability, something Github really doesn't have to worry about.

HWR_14 3y ago

TMobile buying Sprint seems to have created a solid 3rd competitor in the cell phone space.

pnutjam 3y ago
Three? It's basically just t-mo and vz.
- sp332 3y ago
  AT&T.
bearjaws 3y ago
Shouldn't have ATT and VZW in the first place... Should be much smaller, in fact ATT was already broken up but then FTC policy changed. Bit more complicated due to spectrum licensing, but theres a way to make it work with more carrier options.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  ATT is still pretty broken up. Its components turned into Verizon, QWest and ATT. The vertical integration (every US telecom device before the breakup was physically manufactured by an ATT subsidiary) is gone. Meanwhile, I don't see how having more than 3 companies building cellular infrastructure helps at all. Regulated access for MVNOs seems to fill the competition niche.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

Disney/Pixar is often considered a good one. It’s still too recent but many are optimistic about Microsoft/Activision. Also many bank acquisitions that prevent failure are obviously good.

user3939382 3y ago
To play devil’s advocate: Disney has had a lot of problems lately and there’s a very plausible alternate reality where Pixar staying independent forced Disney to do better.
bearjaws 3y ago
The last 5 Pixar films are all flops, and all signs point to leadership at Disney interfering with the creative process. > Also many bank acquisitions that prevent failure are obviously good. We wouldn't worry about bank failure if they weren't so big in the first place?
- tzs 3y ago
  > The last 5 Pixar films are all flops, and all signs point to leadership at Disney interfering with the creative process. 4 were flops in the sense that their theatrical releases did not cover their budgets, but only 1 of those (Lightyear) was because audiences didn't want to see it (and so could be blamed on the creative process). The other 3 did not cover their budgets with their theatrical releases because they didn't have domestic theater releases (other than very short runs in a handful of theaters probably to preserve eligibility for awards) and their foreign releases were in a much smaller number of countries than other Pixar movies. Domestically, and in countries that had Disney+, they went straight to streaming. In reverse order: • Elemental made nearly $500 million in its theatrical run. In no universe can that be considered to be a flop. • Turning Red did not have a domestic theatrical release, and a fairly limited foreign release. It was only in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Türkiye, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam. In those countries in which both Turning Red and Toy Story 4 (the last Pixar movie before COVID started tanking box office) Turning Red earned about half of what Toy Story 4 did. If we assume that ratio would have been similar in the countries Toy Story 4 was in that did not get Turning Red (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela) we get that Turning Red should have made around $420 million. It was the second most watched streaming film of 2022. • Similar for Luca. It's theatrical release was Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Hungary, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Türkiye, Ukraine, and United Arab Emirates. In those countries that had both Luca and Toy Story 4, Luca earned $39 million and Toy Story 4 earned $70 million. That extrapolates to a full theatrical release for Luca would have been around $560 million. It was the most watched streaming film of 2021. • Soul's theatrical release was Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Hungary, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia/CIS, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam. I don't have the Toy Story 4 comparison for that one, but its total foreign box office was about 2.4x that of Luca, suggesting that had it gotten a full theatrical release it would have have done quite a bit north of $600 million. Soul's release timing made it so its peak streaming straddled the year boundary so it didn't get near top spots on yearly streaming lists but was on top of weekly or monthly lists at the end of 2020 and start of 2021.

lebean 3y ago

Walmart buying cheap crappy TV brand is antitrust in a world that has many cheap crappy TV brands? At least the Microsoft and IE thing made some sense, it's not like we're hurting for choice here.

bearjaws 3y ago
Clearly worked enough with Onn brand for them to keep consolidating. Just at the surface level this hurts: 1. Other brands selling TVs in Walmart. 2. Advertisement space will be cheaper for Walmart when they advertise on their own TVs, toeing the line of anti-trust. 3. Companies that offer advertising and data aggregation across TV brands will now have fewer brands to sell on. 4. Fewer consumer TV brands in general. 5. Walmart can adopt a loss lead model, they don't need to actually make money on the TV, they can make it up in 2-3 other places. Similar to AWS and Amazon.
- doublepg23 3y ago
  Just to be clear though, this will make the TVs cheaper for consumers?
- PolygonSheep 3y ago
  Was Onn ever a "real" brand? I had always assumed it was just a private label brand.
- lebean 3y ago
  We've come a long way since fighting oil, metal, sugar and meat monopolies and cartels. Now we're worried about Walmart buying TV brands. Really puts the past century into perspective for me.

keeganpoppen 3y ago

“let’s make an arbitrary rule because $s with a B in front are Bad”