4 ms·

This is just more pro-monopoly, too big to fail propaganda. If monopoly enforcement had prevented 50 years of defense company mergers, or if the courts had brok

This is just more pro-monopoly, too big to fail propaganda. If monopoly enforcement had prevented 50 years of defense company mergers, or if the courts had broken up Microsoft, this wouldn't be an issue. Let them fail. A hundred competitive companies will rise from the ashes.

ggm 2y ago
> Let them fail. A hundred competitive companies will rise from the ashes Look, I want to agree, but you're casting an awful lot of social disruption into play for probably a decade in a belief we get to a better place when agents of chaos like Musk and Bezos would like to feast on the carcase and grow ownership monopolies in them. I don't personally think the most likely outcome of "let them fail" is a kinder better world.
- gibbitz 2y ago
  True. The best outcome would be a bailout with a breakup for both of them.
  - ggm 2y ago
    I've tended to wish for google carved into different subs, with a wholesale backer to manage s/w and common-core. And in a different pole, completely discrete and different arms for Europe and Asia. No transfer pricing allowed. No rush of licence cash back to the USA. Not going to happen, for Google or Microsoft or Amazon. But if I had the judges wig I'd be forcing regional and I'd be forcing structural separation wholesale/retail.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      IMO the right slicing for Google is hosted services versus client software. This "SaaS" segment has grown by bundling what should be two different markets, using the sticky network effects of the hosted services to prevent a competitive market for client software.
- bediger4000 2y ago
  That didn't happen when the Bell System was broken up. I kind of doubt it would happen from busting up Microsoft, Google or anything else.
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    >That didn't happen when the Bell System was broken up. I kind of doubt it would happen from busting up Microsoft, Google or anything else. Except it did. The eight RBOCs[0] created from the Bell System breakup have re-consolidated into just three gigantic telecoms[1] which include other, non-RBOC corporations as well. As such, perhaps there's another example you could use. Standard Oil? But that's seen a lot of re-consolidation over the past 100 years too. So maybe there isn't a good example of a broken up monopoly not re-consolidating? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company#Mergers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan...
  - okthenwut 2y ago
    We didn’t prevent massive consolidation since either. World wars caused things to fall apart too; didn’t prevent Bell consolidation. We didn’t prevent religious over consolidation. What’s going to stop people from undoing the mess now and remaking it
- salawat 2y ago
  >I don't personally think the most likely outcome of "let them fail" is a kinder better world. What a coincidence. Seemingly same outcome leaving it alone. But if you want to change the outcome of a system, you have to change something about it. I vote for change.
- weebull 2y ago
  The current situation is unstable and requires interventions to stop it collapsing. That doesn't then make it stable. It just prolongs the instability. It will collapse. You only get to influence when it will collapse.

ggm 2y ago

> Let them fail. A hundred competitive companies will rise from the ashes Look, I want to agree, but you're casting an awful lot of social disruption into play for probably a decade in a belief we get to a better place when agents of chaos like Musk and Bezos would like to feast on the carcase and grow ownership monopolies in them. I don't personally think the most likely outcome of "let them fail" is a kinder better world.

gibbitz 2y ago
True. The best outcome would be a bailout with a breakup for both of them.
- ggm 2y ago
  I've tended to wish for google carved into different subs, with a wholesale backer to manage s/w and common-core. And in a different pole, completely discrete and different arms for Europe and Asia. No transfer pricing allowed. No rush of licence cash back to the USA. Not going to happen, for Google or Microsoft or Amazon. But if I had the judges wig I'd be forcing regional and I'd be forcing structural separation wholesale/retail.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    IMO the right slicing for Google is hosted services versus client software. This "SaaS" segment has grown by bundling what should be two different markets, using the sticky network effects of the hosted services to prevent a competitive market for client software.
bediger4000 2y ago
That didn't happen when the Bell System was broken up. I kind of doubt it would happen from busting up Microsoft, Google or anything else.
- nobody9999 2y ago
  >That didn't happen when the Bell System was broken up. I kind of doubt it would happen from busting up Microsoft, Google or anything else. Except it did. The eight RBOCs[0] created from the Bell System breakup have re-consolidated into just three gigantic telecoms[1] which include other, non-RBOC corporations as well. As such, perhaps there's another example you could use. Standard Oil? But that's seen a lot of re-consolidation over the past 100 years too. So maybe there isn't a good example of a broken up monopoly not re-consolidating? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company#Mergers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan...
- okthenwut 2y ago
  We didn’t prevent massive consolidation since either. World wars caused things to fall apart too; didn’t prevent Bell consolidation. We didn’t prevent religious over consolidation. What’s going to stop people from undoing the mess now and remaking it
salawat 2y ago
>I don't personally think the most likely outcome of "let them fail" is a kinder better world. What a coincidence. Seemingly same outcome leaving it alone. But if you want to change the outcome of a system, you have to change something about it. I vote for change.
weebull 2y ago
The current situation is unstable and requires interventions to stop it collapsing. That doesn't then make it stable. It just prolongs the instability. It will collapse. You only get to influence when it will collapse.