5 ms·

Do we go after Instagram for being a monopoly on photo sharing? Twitter for a monopoly on arbitrarily-small marketing messages and snark? Facebook for a monop

by bhauer 13y ago

Do we go after Instagram for being a monopoly on photo sharing? Twitter for a monopoly on arbitrarily-small marketing messages and snark? Facebook for a monopoly on social networking? Yet, the EU has--in laughably minor ways--gone after Google for its monopoly on search. It seems there is some correlation between the size (real or imagined) of the market with whether the government attack dogs are loosed. The point may not really be relevant to the matter at hand, I'll agree. But it's nevertheless amusing to me how often I see the same people who decry desktop computing to be over still harping on about the need for the government to bust Microsoft for its desktop computing monopoly.

nknighthb 13y ago
There is no law against being a monopoly. Microsoft was not punished for being a monopoly. They were punished (poorly) for abusing their monopoly position.
- bhauer 13y ago
  Reducing the situation so ends up sounding disturbingly capricious, where favors are granted to the politically powerful and oppression is handed out to the politically weak by defining their actions as abusive. I feel Google abuses its search monopoly to shove Chrome down my throat. I feel Youtube abuses its web video monopoly to force me into using Google+. I feel just about every company is shoving their cloud services and making management and control of local resources frustratingly limited by comparison. But do I want any government to step in and assist me? No, thank you very much. I feel I'd be happier with technology today--perhaps only slightly, mind you, but happier--had Microsoft been left alone in the late 90s/early 2000s.
  - hga 13y ago
    The US, at least, in theory goes further, consumers must be harmed. The above examples may be abusive, but are they harming you?
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    It sounds like you'd be happier without any government, period, which makes continuing this discussion pointless.

by bhauer 13y ago

nknighthb 13y ago

There is no law against being a monopoly. Microsoft was not punished for being a monopoly. They were punished (poorly) for abusing their monopoly position.

bhauer 13y ago
Reducing the situation so ends up sounding disturbingly capricious, where favors are granted to the politically powerful and oppression is handed out to the politically weak by defining their actions as abusive. I feel Google abuses its search monopoly to shove Chrome down my throat. I feel Youtube abuses its web video monopoly to force me into using Google+. I feel just about every company is shoving their cloud services and making management and control of local resources frustratingly limited by comparison. But do I want any government to step in and assist me? No, thank you very much. I feel I'd be happier with technology today--perhaps only slightly, mind you, but happier--had Microsoft been left alone in the late 90s/early 2000s.
- hga 13y ago
  The US, at least, in theory goes further, consumers must be harmed. The above examples may be abusive, but are they harming you?
- nknighthb 13y ago
  It sounds like you'd be happier without any government, period, which makes continuing this discussion pointless.