4 ms·

One drawback in most analyses of digital monopolies I've read, including this one, is that they use a lot of past examples (IBM, Microsoft, MySpace or even Orku

by r0h1n 12y ago

One drawback in most analyses of digital monopolies I've read, including this one, is that they use a lot of past examples (IBM, Microsoft, MySpace or even Orkut) that do not capture the dramatically different tech landscape we're part of today. Thanks to the trifecta of ubiquitous smartphones, pervasive Internet and no-holds-barred data mining, I'd argue that the tech landscape we inhabit today is very different from anything we've ever encountered. Say a startup does create a better product than Google or Facebook, it can't charge for it, because everything is free. It certainly can't monetize it better than Google or Facebook because they have infinitely more data on users than any startup can even fathom. It has to go through Google's and Facebook's "gates" to find and retain customers. Those precious few that do manage to pull off the impossible, like Whatsapp, will be quickly bought over by Google or Facebook. Thus closing off any gaps that existed in their defense and reducing the possibility of independent competition even more. Any meaningful analysis of digital monopolies needs to understand this instead of just relying on past examples. Edit: I'm not saying the EU is right, or that their motives are kosher. Merely that we need to do a comprehensive forward-looking analysis of Google's dominance, extrapolating from present data and trends. Using past data alone strikes me as lazy or self-serving.

nickik 12y ago
Past examples also such because they are bad examples. The Antitrust case against IBM was dropped because it dragged on so long and by the end IBM had lost the monopoly allready. The real story is the guy who was going after IBM died and nobody else was perticularly intrested in keeping it going. The same goes for microsoft, I dont think the antitrust laws led to the weaker market position it now has. There product sucked, people moved on, and forced microsoft to up there game.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Internet Explorer had greater than 90% market share at the peak, and Microsoft was vigorously arguing that it was such an integrated part of the operating system that having a choice was impossible. The whole problem with monopolies is that it doesn't matter if their product sucks because you don't really have any other options. People can only move on if they have a choice.
  - justanotheracc 12y ago
    I am somewhat amazed by how long it is taking the population to move away from Windows, now that there are real choices for mainstream users (Linux Mint, OSX). The look of Linux Mint feels especially Windows XP/7-ish, which is probably why I and others feel so comfortable with it.
    - nickik 12y ago
      Why would you assume that everybody wnat to move away from microsoft? Most people are ok, they dont have a deep hate for microsoft and just wait until they can move away from it. I tried to get people other things but usually they just prefered windows in the end. Sure part is familiarity but not all of it.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        I guess it's price (osx) and drivers (Linux). God, everyone would be much better off if we just moved to FOSS OS's.
  - nickik 12y ago
    The hole court case was about bundling, nowdays everybody does that. Can you imagen any operating system beeing sold without preinstalled browser? Also how would people go about downloading the other browser if there was not internet explorer? When apple had much of the smartphone market, there was not antitrust against them, but there was a browser on that phone. Also if you cant put any software on a computer you sell, then the logical conclusion is that we should only be allowed to sell pre installed kernals, everything else would be abusing monopoly position (assuming there is a high market share in the OS). Microsoft probebly had 99% market share in defragmentation tools back then as well. The faulty assumition is that the product is the operating system, in reality the product is more then just the operating system its a hole bundle of diffrent software.
    - lmm 12y ago
      > The hole[sic] court case was about bundling, nowdays[sic] everybody does that. Can you imagen[sic] any operating system beeing[sic] sold without preinstalled browser? The case was in the days when browsers were much less interoperable. There was a real concern that bundling IE would make it easy for MS to make everyone buy IIS, because that would be the best server to use to serve sites for IE. It didn't turn out that way for a variety of reasons (among them the rise of Mozilla, impossible to predict at the time, and the amazing growth of Apache), but that doesn't mean the lawsuit was wrong, knowing what we did at the time. > Also how would people go about downloading the other browser if there was not internet explorer? ftp.mozilla.org or similar; BSD FTP ships with pretty much any computer.
magicalist 12y ago
> Thanks to the trifecta of ubiquitous smartphones, pervasive Internet and no-holds-barred data mining, I'd argue that the tech landscape we inhabit today is very different from anything we've ever encountered. Say a startup does create a better product than Google or Facebook, it can't charge for it, because everything is free. It certainly can't monetize it better than Google or Facebook because they have infinitely more data on users than any startup can even fathom. It has to go through Google's and Facebook's "gates" to find and retain customers. Those precious few that do manage to pull off the impossible, like Whatsapp, will be quickly bought over by Google or Facebook. Thus closing off any gaps that existed in their defense and reducing the possibility of independent competition even more. I feel like you just described the exact circumstances in which Google and Facebook came up in the world. Competing against huge entrenched interests, couldn't charge for their products, and remember that Brin and Page tried to get acquired and Zuckerberg refused many offers. If history had gone a little differently and had Zuckerberg changed his mind, both companies would be little more than footnotes today, absorbed into some existing behemoth. Meanwhile computing infrastructure today is far far cheaper at gigantic scales. I don't think we can conclude much from the fact that very few companies become hugely successful these days; that's always been true. > Merely that we need to do a comprehensive forward-looking analysis of Google's dominance, extrapolating from present data and trends. Using past data alone strikes me as lazy or self-serving present data and trends are a direct result of the past, and while things do change, it's not clear that today is fundamentally different than 10 years ago and those aren't all still instructive examples (while remembering we're hopelessly under the foot of biased sampling here)
baddox 12y ago
But what you described is just economy of scale. It's not really all that different than a large factory being able to manufacture a product at lower cost than a small factory.

by r0h1n 12y ago

nickik 12y ago

Past examples also such because they are bad examples. The Antitrust case against IBM was dropped because it dragged on so long and by the end IBM had lost the monopoly allready. The real story is the guy who was going after IBM died and nobody else was perticularly intrested in keeping it going. The same goes for microsoft, I dont think the antitrust laws led to the weaker market position it now has. There product sucked, people moved on, and forced microsoft to up there game.

wpietri 12y ago
Internet Explorer had greater than 90% market share at the peak, and Microsoft was vigorously arguing that it was such an integrated part of the operating system that having a choice was impossible. The whole problem with monopolies is that it doesn't matter if their product sucks because you don't really have any other options. People can only move on if they have a choice.
- justanotheracc 12y ago
  I am somewhat amazed by how long it is taking the population to move away from Windows, now that there are real choices for mainstream users (Linux Mint, OSX). The look of Linux Mint feels especially Windows XP/7-ish, which is probably why I and others feel so comfortable with it.
  - nickik 12y ago
    Why would you assume that everybody wnat to move away from microsoft? Most people are ok, they dont have a deep hate for microsoft and just wait until they can move away from it. I tried to get people other things but usually they just prefered windows in the end. Sure part is familiarity but not all of it.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      I guess it's price (osx) and drivers (Linux). God, everyone would be much better off if we just moved to FOSS OS's.
- nickik 12y ago
  The hole court case was about bundling, nowdays everybody does that. Can you imagen any operating system beeing sold without preinstalled browser? Also how would people go about downloading the other browser if there was not internet explorer? When apple had much of the smartphone market, there was not antitrust against them, but there was a browser on that phone. Also if you cant put any software on a computer you sell, then the logical conclusion is that we should only be allowed to sell pre installed kernals, everything else would be abusing monopoly position (assuming there is a high market share in the OS). Microsoft probebly had 99% market share in defragmentation tools back then as well. The faulty assumition is that the product is the operating system, in reality the product is more then just the operating system its a hole bundle of diffrent software.
  - lmm 12y ago
    > The hole[sic] court case was about bundling, nowdays[sic] everybody does that. Can you imagen[sic] any operating system beeing[sic] sold without preinstalled browser? The case was in the days when browsers were much less interoperable. There was a real concern that bundling IE would make it easy for MS to make everyone buy IIS, because that would be the best server to use to serve sites for IE. It didn't turn out that way for a variety of reasons (among them the rise of Mozilla, impossible to predict at the time, and the amazing growth of Apache), but that doesn't mean the lawsuit was wrong, knowing what we did at the time. > Also how would people go about downloading the other browser if there was not internet explorer? ftp.mozilla.org or similar; BSD FTP ships with pretty much any computer.

magicalist 12y ago

> Thanks to the trifecta of ubiquitous smartphones, pervasive Internet and no-holds-barred data mining, I'd argue that the tech landscape we inhabit today is very different from anything we've ever encountered. Say a startup does create a better product than Google or Facebook, it can't charge for it, because everything is free. It certainly can't monetize it better than Google or Facebook because they have infinitely more data on users than any startup can even fathom. It has to go through Google's and Facebook's "gates" to find and retain customers. Those precious few that do manage to pull off the impossible, like Whatsapp, will be quickly bought over by Google or Facebook. Thus closing off any gaps that existed in their defense and reducing the possibility of independent competition even more. I feel like you just described the exact circumstances in which Google and Facebook came up in the world. Competing against huge entrenched interests, couldn't charge for their products, and remember that Brin and Page tried to get acquired and Zuckerberg refused many offers. If history had gone a little differently and had Zuckerberg changed his mind, both companies would be little more than footnotes today, absorbed into some existing behemoth. Meanwhile computing infrastructure today is far far cheaper at gigantic scales. I don't think we can conclude much from the fact that very few companies become hugely successful these days; that's always been true. > Merely that we need to do a comprehensive forward-looking analysis of Google's dominance, extrapolating from present data and trends. Using past data alone strikes me as lazy or self-serving present data and trends are a direct result of the past, and while things do change, it's not clear that today is fundamentally different than 10 years ago and those aren't all still instructive examples (while remembering we're hopelessly under the foot of biased sampling here)

baddox 12y ago

But what you described is just economy of scale. It's not really all that different than a large factory being able to manufacture a product at lower cost than a small factory.