ucaetano

31 ms·

271.
by ucaetano 8y ago
That's called milking a story. Writing a single piece can't address all different aspects of a story, such as covering the impact, reactions, etc. It is pretty much standard fare, and would be surprising if they didn't do it.
272.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Is Google News really that big a deal for publishers? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/new-study-shows-... https://www.aeepp.com/pdf/InformeNera.pdf The NERA analysis fou
273.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> a coordinated Being a single newspaper, it absolutely is coordinated. Ever newspaper is coordinated. It would be surprising if it wasn't. So this is largely irrelevant. It would be relevant if there was coordination amongst multip
274.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Nice tu quote!
275.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Patients are fed up with being turned into money bags
276.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Okay so they're not illegal. I wouldn't say "perfectly fine" though From a anti-trust perspective, not-illegal is perfectly fine. > I would argue that any situation where there is a natural monopoly it should be
277.
by ucaetano 8y ago
It isn't if the can, it is if they do. And it doesn't seem like they do, there is plenty of competition in the non-alcoholic drink space.
278.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world. No, that&#x
279.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> If a company has a persistently high market share and has had for a long while, it has an effective monopoly whether or not it has ineffectual competitors. No, it doesn't. Making up your own definition of monopoly (or the meaningl
280.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true. No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices? > Instead
281.
by ucaetano 8y ago
From the Department of Justice: For this reason, antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry. Where monopoly power is acquired or maintain
282.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API. You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and
283.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Thats pretty reductionist - so is every newspaper, cinema, and television station. Indeed, and that's the key point here. That's what people are failing to understand. > other side that would suggest that a large company l
284.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Of course they are. They are competing for eyeballs, user actions and for ads.
285.
by ucaetano 8y ago
That doesn't make any sense...
286.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Again, who cares? Consumer protection isn't about letting you taste some weird cola. It is about price. Read the Supreme Court's definition.
287.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> You don't understand how much Coke owns or creates do you? Oh please...
288.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> As others have pointed out, you just seem to be using a different definition than the rest of us are. The Supreme Court has defined market power as "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive m
289.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Yep, and from the link: The Supreme Court has defined market power as "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market,"(8) and monopoly power as "the power to control prices or exclude c
290.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Every beverage company does the same (see Nestle).
291.
by ucaetano 8y ago
But that isn't a monopoly. Imagine Coca-Cola creates a new flavor, with a taste so unique that nobody else is able to replicate it. Is that a monopoly? Is Coca-Cola abusing its power? No, and no.
292.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> monopoly is used as shorthand for monopoly power No, it is used as shorthand for "market share in a market I define arbitrarily". Proving monopoly power is a much more complex and academic process.
293.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> But being blue isn't a defining feature of Facebook Indeed, nor is it a defining feature of the market. That is exactly my point: if your labe of "monopoly" relies on a non-defining feature of a market that sets it apart
294.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> It's odd that you would be fine with a corporate monopoly exerting dominant power over its market (to extract more profit) Where did you get that idea from? I'm not. > Monopoly definition is political Nope, it is economics
295.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops? Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it e
296.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Also, in your example, Coke definitely has a monopoly on the cola market, even if it doesn't on the entire soda market. No, it doesn't. At least not by the economic definition of monopoly, which, when talking about regulation
297.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Exactly: you can absolutely always define a market here a company has a close-to-100% market share. That's why, to actually talk about a monopoly, you need to very precisely define the market. Take Facebook: Facebook has a monopoly in
298.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> And if Coke had 95% market share in the U.S., it could easily be ruled a monopoly. Nope. Because monopoly isn't just about market share. That's what people here don't seem to understand.
299.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Effectively, yes. No. You can always create a market where a company has a "monopoly" (in the market share sense of the word). > Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all compet
300.
by ucaetano 8y ago
It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is pr

More ›