3 ms·

Facebook 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 h

Facebook 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 ago
Isn't this the purpose of most acquisitions?
- callc 2y ago
  If 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 ago
    Instagram 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 ago
      Regardless 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 ago
  Isn't this the purpose of most acquisitions? No, it's not. It is not normal or usual. Not even in the tech industry.
- blululu 2y ago
  A true accounting of board level corporate motivations is not available. The standard line is typically something like “we are acquiring our smaller rival to more effectively compete with our larger rival”. I.e “we are acquiring a small desktop publishing start up to compete with the largest cloud computing provider”. Or in this case: “we are acquiring a small photo sharing company to compete against Google/Youtube”.
the_clarence 2y ago
Are we talking past each other? How is that anti competitive? This is literally the opposite: they embraced and validated their competitor by making them a huge offer, showing that it pays off to compete
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  And once they bought them, then Instagram wasn't a competitor any more. That's how it's anti-competitive.
  - the_clarence 2y ago
    I disagree that it is anti competitive, it is not "killing" competition. Killing competition is setting prices that makes the competition go bankrupt, it's assassinating people, it's pushing for changes that prevent the competition from working in the same environment, etc. here nothing prevented instagram from saying no and getting bigger.

DecentShoes 2y ago

Isn't this the purpose of most acquisitions?

callc 2y ago
If 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 ago
  Instagram 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 ago
    Regardless 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 ago
Isn't this the purpose of most acquisitions? No, it's not. It is not normal or usual. Not even in the tech industry.
blululu 2y ago
A true accounting of board level corporate motivations is not available. The standard line is typically something like “we are acquiring our smaller rival to more effectively compete with our larger rival”. I.e “we are acquiring a small desktop publishing start up to compete with the largest cloud computing provider”. Or in this case: “we are acquiring a small photo sharing company to compete against Google/Youtube”.

the_clarence 2y ago

Are we talking past each other? How is that anti competitive? This is literally the opposite: they embraced and validated their competitor by making them a huge offer, showing that it pays off to compete

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
And once they bought them, then Instagram wasn't a competitor any more. That's how it's anti-competitive.
- the_clarence 2y ago
  I disagree that it is anti competitive, it is not "killing" competition. Killing competition is setting prices that makes the competition go bankrupt, it's assassinating people, it's pushing for changes that prevent the competition from working in the same environment, etc. here nothing prevented instagram from saying no and getting bigger.