3 ms·
Regulatory moat and copyright relief for me, but not for thee.
by echelon 2y ago
Regulatory moat and copyright relief for me, but not for thee.
- MisterTea 2y agoProblem is they built the moat before moving into the castle.
- altairprime 2y agoMoats are not a problem if your liege lord teleports in and lowers the drawbridge for you.
- hayst4ck 2y agoMoat is an Orwellian word and we should reject words that contain a conceptual metaphor that is convenient for abusing power. "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense rather than an assault on the free market by implying that monopolistic behavior is a survival strategy rather than an attempt to dominate the market and coerce customers. "We need to build a moat" is much more agreeable to tell employees than "we need to be more anti-competitive."
- sitkack 2y agoIt is pretty obvious that every use of that word is to communicate a stance that is allergic to free markets. A moat by definition has such a large strategic asymmetry that one cannot cross it without a very high chance of death. A functioning SEC and FTC as well as CFPB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_... are necessary for efficient markets. Now might be the time to rollout consumer club cards that are adversarial in nature.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoA "moat" is a fine business term for what it relates to, and most moats are innocuous: * The secret formula for Coke * ASML's technology * The "Gucci" brand * Apple's network effects These are genuine competitive advantages in the market. Regulatory moats and other similar things are an assault on the free market. Moats in general are not.
- fc417fc802 2y agoI'm with you except for that last one. Innovation provides a moat that also benefits the consumer. In contrast, network effects don't seem to provide any benefit. They're just a landscape feature that can be taken advantage of by the incumbent to make competition more difficult. I'm hardly the only one to think this way, hence regulation such as data portability in the EU.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoI agree with you in general, but there are network effects at Apple that are helpful to the consumer. For example, iphone-mac integration makes things better for owners of both, and Apple can internally develop protocols like their "bump to share a file" protocol much faster than they can as part of an industry consortium. Both of these are network effects that are beneficial to the consumer.
- fc417fc802 2y agoI'm not sure a single individual owning multiple products from the same company is the typical way "network effect" is used. The protocol example is a good one. However I don't think it's the network effect that's beneficial in that case but rather the innovation of the thing that was built. If it's closed, I think that facet specifically is detrimental to the consumer. If it's open, then that's the best you can do to mitigate the unfortunate reality that taking advantage of this particular innovation requires multiple participating endpoints. It's just how it is.
- echelon 2y agoI'm fine with Apple making their gear work together, but they shouldn't be privileged over third parties. Moreover, they shouldn't have any way to force (or even nudge via defaults) the user to use Apple Payments, App Store, or other Apple platform pieces. Anyone should be on equal footing and there shouldn't be any taxation. Apple already has every single advantage, and what they're doing now is occupying an anticompetitive high ground via which they can control (along with duopoly partner Google) the entire field of mobile computing.
- mullingitover 2y ago> "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense This is a drastic take, I think to most of us in the industry "moat" simply means whatever difficult-to-replicate competitive advantage that a firm has invested heavily in. Regulatory capture and graft aren't moats, they're plain old corrupt business practices.
- fc417fc802 2y agoThose two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
- hayst4ck 2y agoThe problem is that moat is a defensive word and using it to describe competitive advantage implies that even anti-competitive tactics are defensive because that's the frame under which the conversation is taking place. Worse that "moats" are a good thing, which they are for the company, but not necessarily society at large. The larger the moat, the more money coming out of your pocket as a customer. It is insidious.