3 ms·

Because those companies: 1. Invested massively. In the case of Microsoft and Google, ahead of demand. 2. Have lots of developers already familiar with their s

Because those companies: 1. Invested massively. In the case of Microsoft and Google, ahead of demand. 2. Have lots of developers already familiar with their stacks, especially Microsoft via Windows and .NET which are mainstays of nearly all European non-tech businesses. 3. Indeed, have lots of "never get fired" effect; the word you're looking for is brand equity. Especially the case with non-technical execs already familiar with their consumer products, and it's often non-technical execs who make the decisions about which brand they're going with. Everyone knows MS Office and likes it, everyone knows Amazon and buys from it, everyone knows Google and searches with it. Their products work well, so their clouds must also work well. In government especially the decisions are always non technical so this matters a lot. Monopoly does actually mean only a single provider: that's the definition and your Wikipedia link opens by stating exactly that in its first sentence. Sometimes the term is stretched or abused by governments. That happens because everyone across the political spectrum agrees to anti-trust laws in principle, and then the left can use them as a stick to beat companies with if only they can twist the definition of monopoly far enough. This so-called legal definition isn't a definition at all, it's a purely political construct which is why it includes ambiguous terms like significant, unfair, overly high etc. Even using this non-definition though, cloud providers don't qualify. They're actually famous for not raising prices. Raising prices a lot on existing customers is a typical sign that a company has significant market power.

eesmith 2y ago
"Invested massively" because the could get scaling advantages. Both companies built off of existing OS and ad tech monopolies which should have been regulated long ago. "Lots of developers already familiar with their stacks" is a network effect. > Monopoly does actually mean only a single provider Is a tomato a fruit? I was very clear to give my definition of "monopoly", to include "oligarchy" for those who wanted to be picky, to point to how others describe De Beers as a "monopoly", consistent with my use, and to show how even the Wikipedia page on "monopoly" is not disagreeing with me. You'll note that same Wikipedia page for "monopoly" lists De Beers and Standard Oil as monopolies, when they were not sole providers of diamonds or petroleum, respectively. > They're actually famous for not raising prices. Right. You are using Bork's 1970s influential re-orientation of monopoly power away from general anti-competitive behavior to focus only on "consumer welfare". I agree with Lina Khan (starting with "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox") and others, who argue that Bork's standard is too narrow. Or, to use your terms, Bork's right-wing viewpoints twisted established law to allow abusive behavior by powerful companies, so long as consumer pricing was not affected. V.P. Vance likes Khan because he wants the right to use the stick to beat companies which don't support the right. This is only possible because all of the big tech companies already abuse their market power, because Bork gave them the freedom to do so. > This so-called legal definition isn't a definition at all, it's a purely political construct All laws are political constructs. What is "ownership"? Do you own the water which falls on the land you own? What is a "reasonable search"? What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  We're in agreement that the clouds were funded by other lines of business: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43397653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43397653 Good law is precise and clear, so everyone knows how to follow it. The meaning of the word "ownership", to take your example, is precisely defined via legislation and case law. Anti-trust law is neither precise nor clear which is why - and we are both in agreement on this point - that right now both left and right are happy to pick it up and use it to "beat companies" for political reasons. They can't do that with property law because property law is well defined. The big advantage of the Bork formulation is exactly avoidance of this outcome. By requiring there to be actual evidence that harm was done, it hugely reduces the ability to abuse these laws for political ends and keeps them focused on behaviors that are actually detrimental to the market.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Ownership is not precise and clear. There are always new cases to figure out what it means. Like, if there are two pieces of public land, which meet at a corner, and two pieces of private land on either side of the corner, then are you trespassing on private land if you step from public land to public land across the corner? I think all of the big IT companies deserve to be beat, broken up, and strict laws placed in future power. That's different than using the cudgel to only go after the ones which disagree with whoever is in power. > for political reasons My view is non-partisan. If Amazon were to become a worker-owned co-op tomorrow, infused by the spirit of Joe Hill, I would still want it broken up. > They can't do that with property law because property law is well defined. The US has some very big cudgels already. The government can pass laws changing what property law means. The government has very broad power to seize land, and exercise eminent domain. The government can nationalize companies. If the US decides to invade Canada and Microsoft turns off services to the US military, do you have any doubts that the US will nationalize Microsoft? I don't. > evidence that harm was done See, fundamentally we have different interpretation of market abuse. Bork's view is simple - only look at the effect on consumers. That simplicity doesn't make it right. Antitrust laws are meant to encourage competition. The free market does not like competition. The law is full of edge cases. That's why we have the courts. Since there isn't a precise and clear definition of "cruel and unusual punishment", should we get rid of it?

eesmith 2y ago

"Invested massively" because the could get scaling advantages. Both companies built off of existing OS and ad tech monopolies which should have been regulated long ago. "Lots of developers already familiar with their stacks" is a network effect. > Monopoly does actually mean only a single provider Is a tomato a fruit? I was very clear to give my definition of "monopoly", to include "oligarchy" for those who wanted to be picky, to point to how others describe De Beers as a "monopoly", consistent with my use, and to show how even the Wikipedia page on "monopoly" is not disagreeing with me. You'll note that same Wikipedia page for "monopoly" lists De Beers and Standard Oil as monopolies, when they were not sole providers of diamonds or petroleum, respectively. > They're actually famous for not raising prices. Right. You are using Bork's 1970s influential re-orientation of monopoly power away from general anti-competitive behavior to focus only on "consumer welfare". I agree with Lina Khan (starting with "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox") and others, who argue that Bork's standard is too narrow. Or, to use your terms, Bork's right-wing viewpoints twisted established law to allow abusive behavior by powerful companies, so long as consumer pricing was not affected. V.P. Vance likes Khan because he wants the right to use the stick to beat companies which don't support the right. This is only possible because all of the big tech companies already abuse their market power, because Bork gave them the freedom to do so. > This so-called legal definition isn't a definition at all, it's a purely political construct All laws are political constructs. What is "ownership"? Do you own the water which falls on the land you own? What is a "reasonable search"? What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?

mike_hearn 2y ago
We're in agreement that the clouds were funded by other lines of business: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43397653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43397653 Good law is precise and clear, so everyone knows how to follow it. The meaning of the word "ownership", to take your example, is precisely defined via legislation and case law. Anti-trust law is neither precise nor clear which is why - and we are both in agreement on this point - that right now both left and right are happy to pick it up and use it to "beat companies" for political reasons. They can't do that with property law because property law is well defined. The big advantage of the Bork formulation is exactly avoidance of this outcome. By requiring there to be actual evidence that harm was done, it hugely reduces the ability to abuse these laws for political ends and keeps them focused on behaviors that are actually detrimental to the market.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Ownership is not precise and clear. There are always new cases to figure out what it means. Like, if there are two pieces of public land, which meet at a corner, and two pieces of private land on either side of the corner, then are you trespassing on private land if you step from public land to public land across the corner? I think all of the big IT companies deserve to be beat, broken up, and strict laws placed in future power. That's different than using the cudgel to only go after the ones which disagree with whoever is in power. > for political reasons My view is non-partisan. If Amazon were to become a worker-owned co-op tomorrow, infused by the spirit of Joe Hill, I would still want it broken up. > They can't do that with property law because property law is well defined. The US has some very big cudgels already. The government can pass laws changing what property law means. The government has very broad power to seize land, and exercise eminent domain. The government can nationalize companies. If the US decides to invade Canada and Microsoft turns off services to the US military, do you have any doubts that the US will nationalize Microsoft? I don't. > evidence that harm was done See, fundamentally we have different interpretation of market abuse. Bork's view is simple - only look at the effect on consumers. That simplicity doesn't make it right. Antitrust laws are meant to encourage competition. The free market does not like competition. The law is full of edge cases. That's why we have the courts. Since there isn't a precise and clear definition of "cruel and unusual punishment", should we get rid of it?