4 ms·

As a consumer a care greatly about the fate of businesses: they are the ones providing the services and products I enjoy. The government gives me nothing. Less

by nickpp 2y ago

As a consumer a care greatly about the fate of businesses: they are the ones providing the services and products I enjoy. The government gives me nothing. Less than nothing, actually, since they are taking most of my income for the crap they provide. And I care about every single business since I know that the more competition there is - the better and cheaper the products and services will be.

Apocryphon 2y ago
Right, and in this hypothetical scenario, foreign businesses are providing you with potentially higher-quality services and products at lower costs.
- nickpp 2y ago
  So far, in software, no they don’t. Still want their competition: keeps the local business on their toes. I want them both.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    Perhaps the fall of a dominant company will spur on greater competition as rival claimants attempt to fill the power vacuum.
    - nickpp 2y ago
      Only if that fall comes as a result of natural competition and market forces (like what happened to IBM for example). But if the fall was the result of government culling and interference with the free market, a chilling effect will take place among the most vulnerable in the business chain: startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups. The end result will be even less competition and more monopolies - inviting additional government intervention in a vicious cycle that ends up with only large, incumbent, too-big-to-fail corporations on an overregulated market. Like how it's in the EU for example. Or the aerospace industry in the US. Politicians are quite happy with this state of things since their role is expanding and everyone is asking for their help. The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices...
      - Apocryphon 2y ago
        > startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups Debatable. Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation of even bigger tech companies, including its old rival Apple. > The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices... Going back to the original thread, that’s where foreign competitors come in for customer choice.
        nickpp 2y ago
        > Debatable. It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs. > Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation The slap on the wrist Microsoft received with the antitrust action was completely inconsequential on the subject matter (browser bundling) but managed to discourage the company and thus reduced competition exactly when we needed it the most: at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit - instead of startups. Because regulation favors the incumbents. Always. And you can't count the unfounded startups but I am not happy with the state of competition in today's high-tech scene. I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s. I blame it squarely on government regulation: the Microsoft lawsuit and Sarbanes-Oxley. Their chilling effect on startup creation was clearly visible in the 00's.
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        > It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs. Too bad. Entrepreneurs serve the customers. If you won't build it, we won't go. We shall simply patronize other businesses. > at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit Microsoft was already stumbling in the Ballmer years long before mobile - they failed to capitalize on the internet itself, they couldn't build a compelling search engine, for starters. They couldn't even get the Zune to be a lasting brand. None of this is due to antitrust, but to their own organizational dysfunctions and inability to execute. > I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s. Ah yes, the demise of BeOS and OS/2 was caused by government regulation, and not Wintel dominance.

by nickpp 2y ago

Apocryphon 2y ago

Right, and in this hypothetical scenario, foreign businesses are providing you with potentially higher-quality services and products at lower costs.

nickpp 2y ago
So far, in software, no they don’t. Still want their competition: keeps the local business on their toes. I want them both.
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  Perhaps the fall of a dominant company will spur on greater competition as rival claimants attempt to fill the power vacuum.
  - nickpp 2y ago
    Only if that fall comes as a result of natural competition and market forces (like what happened to IBM for example). But if the fall was the result of government culling and interference with the free market, a chilling effect will take place among the most vulnerable in the business chain: startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups. The end result will be even less competition and more monopolies - inviting additional government intervention in a vicious cycle that ends up with only large, incumbent, too-big-to-fail corporations on an overregulated market. Like how it's in the EU for example. Or the aerospace industry in the US. Politicians are quite happy with this state of things since their role is expanding and everyone is asking for their help. The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices...
    - Apocryphon 2y ago
      > startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups Debatable. Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation of even bigger tech companies, including its old rival Apple. > The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices... Going back to the original thread, that’s where foreign competitors come in for customer choice.
      - nickpp 2y ago
        > Debatable. It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs. > Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation The slap on the wrist Microsoft received with the antitrust action was completely inconsequential on the subject matter (browser bundling) but managed to discourage the company and thus reduced competition exactly when we needed it the most: at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit - instead of startups. Because regulation favors the incumbents. Always. And you can't count the unfounded startups but I am not happy with the state of competition in today's high-tech scene. I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s. I blame it squarely on government regulation: the Microsoft lawsuit and Sarbanes-Oxley. Their chilling effect on startup creation was clearly visible in the 00's.
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        > It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs. Too bad. Entrepreneurs serve the customers. If you won't build it, we won't go. We shall simply patronize other businesses. > at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit Microsoft was already stumbling in the Ballmer years long before mobile - they failed to capitalize on the internet itself, they couldn't build a compelling search engine, for starters. They couldn't even get the Zune to be a lasting brand. None of this is due to antitrust, but to their own organizational dysfunctions and inability to execute. > I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s. Ah yes, the demise of BeOS and OS/2 was caused by government regulation, and not Wintel dominance.