4 ms·
I don't understand the FTC's strategy here. Their entire case hinges on the fact that the judge will accept that Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat and MeWe (?) are
by paxys 2y ago
I don't understand the FTC's strategy here. Their entire case hinges on the fact that the judge will accept that Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat and MeWe (?) are direct competitors of Facebook in the "personal social networking" space while TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and all the rest aren't. Unsurprisingly that is what Meta's legal team is spending all of its efforts debating. I really can't see the judge allowing such a cherry-picked definition of what Facebook's market is.
- scialex 2y agoI mean it's not much more unreasonable then the argument that iphones and android phones don't compete but courts bought that.
- granzymes 2y agoA court didn’t buy that: the district court and 9th Circuit both held that iOS and Android compete in the Epic v. Apple case. A jury however found that the relevant market in the Epic v. Google case was just Android. Google is understandably appealing that to the 9th Circuit.
- whatshisface 2y agoThe definition of a trust isn't a business with no competitors. In fact, a business with no competitors is legal. Antitrust law limits "anti-competitive actions," which are possible even for commodity producers in an efficient market.
- the_clarence 2y agoExactly! So what is anti competitive here?
- karaterobot 2y agoThe government has alleged that Meta's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram was done to reduce competition. Nothing has been established as anti-competitive or not yet, that's why it's in court. Evidence from both sides will be presented. I'm not sure how else to answer that question.
- tyre 2y agoZuckerberg in writing said that instagram was purchased to prevent them from competing. Many things have been established.
- lazide 2y agoIt’s perfectly fine to do anti-competitive actions. They’re fundamental to most businesses survival, actually. It’s not fine to do them to create, expand, protect, attempt to create, etc. monopolies. So essentially, you can be anti-competitive only to the point where you’ve been too successful at it, then it’s bad.
- n4r9 2y agoAnti-competitive behaviours such as price-fixing and over-broad no-compete clauses can be problematic even without a monopoly.
- lazide 2y agoFair point, though they typically only become problematic (aka are acted on/legislated against) when they significantly distort the market to a degree people start really complaining about it. Usually due to either a monopsony/cartel/monopoly which controls most of the market doing it successfully. If the companies in the lower 5% of a market price fix or the like, no one usually cares. Even 20%, usually. The Sherman antitrust act speaks about ‘restraints of trade’ because it has to actually restrain trade, which requires a significant degree of control - which a successful/actual monopoly, monopsony, or cartel can do. Technically, even attempting to do it is illegal, but going after every company that tries has a bit of the same feel as locking up every single toddler because they took a swing at someone or threatened them with their cute little stubby kid scissors. It’s a waste of resources, not in anyone’s interest, stops behavior most people would consider necessary/healthy to some degree, causes much worse problems than it solves, etc. On the other hand, locking up a successful serial killer is just good public policy. The difference between the two is more a matter of the success and effectiveness of their tactics, not really intent.
- stackskipton 2y agoFacebook knew that Instagram was up and coming and instead of competing, it just bought it. You can read more about initial complaint and following the trial here: https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/zuckerberg-on-the-stand-the-trial https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/zuckerberg-on-the-stand-the...
- DecentShoes 2y agoIsn't this the purpose of most acquisitions?
- callc 2y agoIf the purpose of an acquisition is to quash competition that is bad. Monopolies are bad. Another purpose of acquisitions is to acquire a new capability that you could not do in house that you do not already compete on.
- dmix 2y agoInstagram was and still is in a highly competitive market. Previously it was Snapchat at the time and now it's Tiktok. Not to mention YouTube shorts, Reddit, Twitter, and every other service focused on video and pictures. I don't think any social media consumer is lacking choice.
- callc 2y agoRegardless of how much “choice” there is in a market, FB made an anti-competitive play. Now we all have n-1 choices. The question of whether society should allow companies to perform anti-competitive actions should not be “will we be left with enough choices?”, but should be “is this an anti-competitive action?”
- reaperducer 2y agoIsn't this the purpose of most acquisitions? No, it's not. It is not normal or usual. Not even in the tech industry.
- ezfe 2y agoBuying a rising product to make sure you control it instead of needing to compete with it is not legal when you're the size of Facebook.
- the_clarence 2y agoIsnt this inviting to competition? You can make a big exit by competing and getting acquired
- ezfe 2y agoWell - it invites people creating big promises and then selling, which doesn't help the consumer.
- the_clarence 2y agoIMO the consumer wins if there's a single social network
- instagib 2y agoFurther advancements in litigation will likely reveal additional information.
- dmix 2y agoUsually you do that before the trial. Using that as the tactic is shady. Although this has always had the vibe of being about clamping down on big tech power not protecting upstarts. So the goals might be broader. A lever to pull through threats of more of this.
- gruez 2y agoThat's basically every antitrust case. Is Window's market IBM-compatible PCs/laptops, or does it include Macs and chromebooks as well? What about other computing devices like tablets/phones, given that many households (especially in poorer countries) don't even have PCs/laptops?
- timewizard 2y agoThankfully there are multiple ways to probe this question: "Did Microsoft sell Windows at a loss?" Now you don't have to define the market. Microsoft did it for you.
- the_clarence 2y agoAlso what if they own multiple apps in the space? I don't get the anti competitiveness here. People can still create new apps and even say no to an acquisition once they become successful.
- hooloovoo_zoo 2y agoIt's a good strategy because that's the obvious distinction and there's an easy litmus test (which apps do people use their real names on). Don't be ridiculous with iMessage.
- paxys 2y agoWhat's the "obvious distinction" and "easy litmus test" that WhatsApp directly competes with Facebook while iMessage is not in the same space? What about Instagram and TikTok?
- hooloovoo_zoo 2y agoiMessage is not a business; it's just a messaging feature. There are no ads or 3rd party content or anything. The easy litmus test is the one I just gave; users generally don't use their real names on tiktok.