The Antitrust Hearing, the Role of Congress, CEO Questions
stratechery.com
stratechery.com
Alphabet Inc., Sundar Pichai Statement -http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG-...
Amazon.com Inc., Jeff Bezos Statement - http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG-...
Apple Inc., Tim Cook Statement - http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG-...
Facebook Inc., Mark Zuckerberg Statement - http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG-...
Interesting to see what they’ve all chosen to say to start off with.
I like how they've mentioned competitors as if they want to take a stand against regulations together while also enacting a feeling that there's enough competition within each of these markets.
Historically, Google made themselves look small by casting themselves as an advertising company, instead of a web-search company. (they own a very small portion of overall advertising, compared to their portion of web search). By making advertisers their competitors, they look like the underdog.
Here, it seems like Google's position has evolved further: "hey, look at all of these other websites with search bars, they are our competition, and they're crushing us". I guess moving the goal-posts is a very effective strategy. :)
The only really abusive thing that they do is around eBooks. They definitely have a monopoly there and doing anti-competitive things to maintain it.
Before you go and compare it to brick and mortar in-house brands like Walmart has, consider that Walmart has a higher investment in things they end up stocking in store (they pay for things up-front and shelf space is comparatively scarce). Amazon doesn't have the concept of "shelf space", and Amazon doesn't paid for the product up-front in many cases.
Walmart is notoriously pushy on suppliers, but once product is on the shelf both Walmart and the supplier's interests are heavily aligned. Amazon would rather peddle you their Basics line instead.
By 1890, even though Standard Oil sold like 90% of the oil in the US, the size of the market not controlled by Standard Oil was bigger than the total market when Standard Oil started (or close). So, in a sense, Standard Oil could have plausibly said they were in a competition with feet and horses? If they disappeared entirely, the market would have been the same size it was before they existed. Obviously the demand for oil would have gone up dramatically anyway without Standard Oil's anti-competitive practices, but it doesn't seem exactly right to treat Standard Oil as taking a slice of a fixed pie when the pie grew so much during it's existence...
Here's a chart of US oil production - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m...
Standard Oil was started in 1870.
It used to be "a click away". Now that it's "an app away", what does that say about App Store antitrust?
Also, "We face competition from... the other gigacorps in this hearing" is not a great look.
Needless to say, this doesn’t match reality; every year The Verge conducts a tech survey and the results speak for themselves:"
Wrong comparison. During its heyday high finance was actually very popular and bankers had a positive reputation as brave risk takers. In the 80s it was still very much seen as the heart of American capitalism. The demise of Wall Street in popular opinion is quite new, and I'm sure if you go back to the days of the Marlboro Cowboy when smoking represented freedom rather than lung cancer you could find similar surveys. (not to mention smoking in popular culture, the risks of smoking were not widely publicised until the 60s).
Whether big tech is comparable to big banks or big tobacco isn't really a question of popular opinion on big tech right now, but rather on the externalities they produce. The population being blind to externalities and negative effects of emerging industries is exceedingly common.
I think this idea that regulation is the opposite of competition is not correct (or is too simplified to be meaningful). It is obviously possible to enact regulation that would make competition less viable. It is also just as obvious that regulation which enables competition is possible.
For example, consider a regulation that standardizes a "social contacts list" and requires that ecosystems in which a use can maintain a list of contacts must be capable of import/export in this standard format.
Do you think this would help or hurt competition among social networks? Would this be an overreach? Is this an example of regulation performing "product design"?
So now every social network must be similar enough to facebook that facebook can import its social contacts lists (and thus must beat facebook at its own game) or so different that it doesn't even have social contacts lists (and thus isn't competing with facebook at all).
This sort of regulation may hadicap a dominant player in the field, but it also handicaps everyone else, and the dominant player is best positioned to play with a handicap. Things only get more problematic if lobbyists from the dominant player get the regulations made in such a way that the handicap for everyone else is worse. You can only regulate what already exists, so regulations by their nature will always enshrine the status quo.
Breaking up monopolies and preventing mergers which significantly reduce competition is much more reasonable than prescriptive regulation in cases where innovations in technologies and business practices can reasonably be expected.
If we had a history of strong independent regulatory bodies who consistently updated regulations as new data emerged and dropped regulations which were found to do more harm than good, I might agree that we should strive for those hypothetical good regulations, but alas we can be quite confident that a regulation which stifles competition (whether intentionally or not) will stay on the books for years if not decades. I'd love to be convinced otherwise but I see no reason to believe regulating innovative industries like tech is likely to be a good idea.
And frankly this whole thing is something of a sideshow. Yes Facebook and Google and these tech giants are monopolies, but if any of them actually go off the deepend its not too hard to switch to an alternative, and the services they provide are hardly life or death, and they don't even stifle innovation much. Indeed many of them have taken the AT&T route and started labs which produce useful opensource developments. If you look at pharmaceuticals, banking, insurance, retail, air-travel, telecommunications, and so forth you'll find gross anti-competitive behavior which holds society back and can cause terrible problems for people. I would argue that most of these issues are a direct result of regulatory capture, but even if you do believe regulation to do more good than harm it should be focused here first. It would be farcical if facebook were to be prescribed how they format their friend data while a pharmaceutical giant gets carte blanche to charge whatever they want for a coronavirus vaccine.
Such an innocuous regulation may seem pro consumer and pro competition, but in practice is probably not great. To start, Congress is probably not qualified to come up with such a standard, leaving you with two possibilities, and new government bureaucracy to manage the standard -- who simply become targets of industry lobbying, or an industry consortium, which is not subject to lobbying because it is already controlled by industry incumbents. This bureaucracy now exists to protect incumbents through 'certification' hurdles and other gatekeeping and reduces innovation since by simply preventing changes.
In reality, there should be both a government bureaucracy and industry consortium for the exact reasons you have laid out.
The industry consortium brings deep technical knowledge and pulls in private companies best interest.
The government bureaucracy brings broad technical knowledge and pulls in the general public's best interest.
Obviously there are significant complexities regarding the effectiveness and social consciousness of either group that are interdependent and potentially dead-locked by external factors (Such as the effectiveness/regulation of lobbying in general). But I don't think that justifies your apparent "Can't win don't try" attitude.
It might be. Do you see consumers clamoring outside the statehouse for more regulation? No? That is likely because they won't benefit from it.
I understand sometimes people do not know what is best for them, but I think the bar for telling people how to live their life should be higher. Every day I am impacted by pointless regulations that cost me money while enriching others.
A lot of the ills with the tech industry are related to centralization, not lack of regulation. That centralization is often driven by regulation that prevents centralization. That is exactly what this regulation would do.
The success of every one of these FAANG companies is because each one of us uses, buys, and likes using their products on average. Complain once in a while as we might that XYZ is hurting some group on some specialized issue, we still continue to visit their websites, buy their hardware, use their search engines, and yes -- enjoy doing it.
Why would these companies be worth billions of $ otherwise? Sorry, I mean Trillions of $.
It's not like they're forcing something down our throats and pillaging the earth as their primary reason for existence, or fraudulently filing loan applications in our name or selling shady mortgages. We created them, each one of us in our hour-by-hour behavior, every day. We don't hold our noses and patronize them reluctantly once per year. We do it every minute. Voluntarily.
So, no, I don't think the average person cares as much about the specialized negatives of these businesses as you think he/she does.
And btw, conduct a self-diagnostic once in a while: reading here on HN, you get an inflated sense of how Apple's 30% cut of developer app store fees is the worst thing in the world that everyone should take to the streets about, or how Google's map API key pricing has become an outrage.
For what they get in return, it's not that bad to the average person. Or even average senator or representative.
Messaging? FB vs Apple vs Google
Ads? FB vs Google vs Amazon
Video? FB vs Google (YouTube) vs Amazon (Twitch)
Especially re: Google linking to its own sites, are we now arguing Google has a monopoly over google.com? It gets a bit weird
I don't know anyone who's arguing that. But I do see people arguing Google having a monopoly on search. In a lot of domains, a business can be created or destroyed entirely on their Google search rank.
The competition just isn't as good at search. Bing has been around for a long time and has managed to gain less than 10% of market share, even though almost everyone has heard of it.
Search? Google. Online retail? Amazon. Video hosting? Google.
Anyone notice how much time the congressmen spoke versus the CEOs? Or how often they were interrupted mid-sentence?
They weren't interested in answers, congress wanted to put on a show. Except it was a poor attempt at...whatever they were trying to accomplish - should have been expected given that it was congress.
And of course nothing will come of this hearing - those companies are not technical monopolies. That's why they are being grilled in congress, rather than being taken to court, because they would win in court.
And don’t even get me started on the format. How are we supposed to set an example for the world when our representatives won’t even let the CEOs of some of our most successful companies finish answering a question? What a waste of time.
You discount that the vast majority of people are completely ignorant of how computers and the internet actually function. They have no idea or, because of their ignorance, do not care that companies such as Google are hovering up all their data and doing who know what with it. Or that large monopolies are wielding more power than any entity has ever possessed. Or that social media is being weaponized by domestic and foreign parties. Or that they are acting as arbiters as to what is and what is not science. I love tech but Facebook, Google, and Twitter are tearing society apart. Twitter and Facebook aren’t even special as far as code goes. Let’s just create open source social media to remove the advertising aspect and kill Facebook and Twitter completely. These sort of companies should NEVER be publicly traded FFS.
At least public companies are accountable to shareholders. Private companies are not accountable to anyone.
> Twitter and Facebook aren’t even special as far as code goes.
You underestimate how hard it is to operate at their scale.
I think one point people miss is, the social media market is highly competitive. All it takes is for Twitter's UX and on-boarding funnel to be 1% better than Mastodon's for Twitter to win.
Someone needs to provide decentralized social media platform without leaking the decentralization into the UX and on-boarding funnel and I've yet to see anyone do that to date.*
*I'm still looking so if anyone has anything for me to check out I'd be thrilled!
If a Mastodon server shuts down one day and everyone on it loses their accounts, they're likely to gather around one centralised set of servers.
There is a circle of trust too. For instance, the servers a server can trust not to propagate spam or content they dislike. This raises the barrier to entry and makes existing servers suspicious of any new servers which pop up.
The centralised option can also afford lawyers to deal with issues which inevitably crop up especially in the post-230 world we're headed towards.
I’m interested in hearing the other side. Big tech is so big they can afford to take big losses and capture huge markets like maps, android, chrome etc fueled by profits from one part of the business and undercutting the small players until they’re dead.
The other bit that surprised me is why Microsoft isn’t part of this. Have they made themselves so diverse that they’re not in the radar anymore? Isn’t what Microsoft doing with bundling a bazillion things in Office 365 fair competition? E.g Teams vs Slack.
Cook says that the developers have so many other choices like Android, PlayStation, or Windows. This is about the U.S. mobile market where the iOS has a monopoly-like market share in terms of app revenue. Similar to Bezos trying to make an argument that it’s not about online marketshare but all of retail. Zuckerberg should take notes - social media apparently also includes phone and in-person meetings.
Cook claims that Apple’s 30% cut is half of what the distributors were charging software publishers or developers before Apple came along to save them. Apparently having your software for sale on the web with just the payment processor’s cut was not a thing.
I understand the constraints on developers/consumers on iOS in regards to the walled garden, but are those numbers considered monopolistic?
0: https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/03/03/apple-iphone-mark...
1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2019/12/22/global-...
"The Supreme Court has defined market power as the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market, and monopoly power as the power to control prices or exclude competition" [2].
For people wanting to sell software to mobile users for which web does not suffice, there is no substitute and apple actively excludes you from 58% of the US market if you need mobile software unless you accept Apples 30% cut. With Android at least, they don't exclude you as you can side load like fortnite [3] but Apple is 100% abusing their market power by excluding developers from avoiding their 30% fee.
[0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl%E2%80%93Hirschman_I...
[2]: https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
[3]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortni...
Full disclosure: I work at a subsidiary of Amazon
He still thinks the United States is a competitive market and that congress simply needs to open up competition.
What a wonderful, fantastic world that must be to live in.
Tech’s products are a series of unregulated skinner boxes vacuuming up data in order to segment each customer into Infinitely smaller market segments to charge them maximum prices they can afford while completely ignoring externalities. The average American is exhausted from playing this “free market virtual “game” in an ever increasing sociopathic world. The average consumer is simply ill-equipped to keep up and they aren’t earning enough to vote with their dollars.
Tech and America business needs to shape up or welcome a bunch of bullshit laws because Americans are tired of this and will welcome “big government”. maybe ben living in Hong Kong can’t see what is happening “on the ground” so to speak.
Read the room, Ben.
Some people see "more regulation" as restrictions to abortion, while others see it as less.
A better poll for this context would ask directly about breaking up or regulating Big Tech, which is very popular[1].
1. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/456221-majority-suppor...
"Do you think that today's internet giants should be subject to federal anti-trust review given that they offer largely free services?"
Yes 68%, No 32%
[0]: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HHP...
But now you're asking something completely different, because "antitrust review" is done by the DoJ under existing law whereas Congress would be creating new restrictions that aren't already on the books ("increased regulation").
On top of that, the question is worded as if you're asking whether they should be investigated rather than penalized, which is also a different question -- basically asking if the government should enforce existing law rather than ignore it.
> given that they offer largely free services
Why don't we just hold a gun to peoples' heads while we poll people and tell them they're evil for voting "No"? Is this what passes as best practice in the world of opinion polling?
My reading of it was, "Due to the fact that their offerings to the public are free, antitrust law, whose jurisprudence has for decades held that consumer prices are the sole useful measure of whether a company is anticompetitive, has largely ignored internet giants. Do you think that this should change, ensuring that they receive the same level of antitrust scrutiny as companies that drive out their competitors and then jack up prices?"
Now, I don't know if that's what everyone taking the poll would have gotten out of the given wording, but when I see the mention of "free services" in the context of internet giants and antitrust law, that's where my mind goes.
It's...not at all an obvious "yes" (unless, like me, you're extremely far left of the average American), so I'm not sure where you're getting a "gun to the head" feel.
I would not trust any poll that thinks the use of the term "internet giants" is going to yield results without biases imposed by the poll itself.
Just about nobody polled on this question is going to know what qualifies a company to be gone after for anti-trust violations. They have never read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Then the question tacks onto the end, "given that they offer largely free services." This is supposed to do what, exactly? Inform people that offering "largely free services" is a violation of the anti-trust act? This kind of deceptive wording is clearly endeavoring to mislead people.
There does not appear to have been any effort at constructing an accurate picture here, and let's be honest as to why. In all likelihood, this poll was designed to construct and reinforce a specific narrative, not to report on public opinion.
> ask directly about breaking up or regulating Big Tech, which is very popular.
If this is what they were referring to then it seems intentionally misleading in the context of criticizing the outcome of poll results based on the details of the question's construction.
Everybody hates congress and loves their congressman, everybody hates 'regulation' but strongly supports some forms of it.
I strongly oppose increased regulation because it prevents competition. It's very difficult for new companies to compete in many areas now without an army of lawyers.
We already have laws on the books that should be preventing these anti-competitive mergers if properly enforced.
There is limited evidence for this. Polling certainly doesn’t show it.
What the data do show is these companies’ app downloads are at record highs. To the degree polling shows broad concern, it’s around monopoly power, workers’ rights and speech suppression.
> ben living in Hong Kong
Believe he is in Taiwan.
> An estimated 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted globally each year, one third of all food produced for human consumption, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
> The amount of food lost or wasted costs 2.6 trillion USD annually and is more than enough to feed all the 815 million hungry people in the world - four times over.
> According to the FAO, high- and low-income countries discard similar amounts of food — 670 and 630 million tonnes, respectively — but there is a major difference in where and how that loss occurs.
> In low-income countries, loss occurs more often in the earlier stages. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, 83 per cent of food is lost during production, handling/storage and processing, while just five per cent is wasted by consumers, according to the World Resources Institute. Conversely, in North America and Oceania, 32 per cent is lost in earlier stages, and 61 per cent is wasted by consumers.
So yeah, food waste is still an issue although more restricted to developed countries.
https://en.reset.org/knowledge/global-food-waste-and-its-env...
Even if the food is grown locally, if it costs 50 cents per piece of fruit to ship them to America where they'll sell for $2 each, that's still dramatically more lucrative than selling them locally for $1 each, which might be a day's wage.
Even if you're producing food locally and people can afford to buy it, that could all change if social or political instability wreaks havoc on the local infrastructure and economy.
Unfortunately, even in giving food aid to those who can't feed themselves for the prior reasons, you have now destroyed the market for local food production which justifies investment in the infrastructure that will keep them from starving should the aid ever dry up. Best case scenario, the farms exist but grow cash crops instead of food staples; worst case scenario the region loses the experience and the means to grow its own food and is rendered permanently dependent on aid.
World hunger is a symptom of global poverty and underdevelopment, and reducing food waste won't fix those problems, it can even exacerbate them. Real progress will require systemic and complicated changes.
That doesn't seem true to me. A lot of food is wasted by your retailers, restaurants and households. They are within range of people suffering from food insecurity.
> An estimated 43 billion pounds of food were wasted in US retail stores in 2010. 33 This is particularly disconcerting given that in 2016, 12.3 percent of American households were food insecure. 34 Most of the loss in retail operations is in perishables, including baked goods, produce, meat, seafood and prepared meals. 35 The USDA estimates that supermarkets lose $15 billion annually in unsold fruit and vegetables alone. 36 Unfortunately, wasteful practices in the retail industry are often viewed as good business strategies. Some of the main drivers for food loss at retail stores include: overstocked product displays, expectation of cosmetic perfection of fruits, vegetables and other foods, oversized packages, the availability of prepared food until closing, expired “sell by” dates, damaged goods, outdated seasonal items, over purchasing of unpopular foods and under staffing.
> US restaurants generate an estimated 22 to 33 billion pounds of food waste each year. Institutions — including schools, hotels and hospitals — generate an additional 7 to 11 billion pounds per year.
> Households are responsible for the largest portion of all food waste. ReFED estimates that US households waste 76 billion pounds of food per year. 45 Approximately 40 to 50 percent of food waste (including 51 to 63 percent of seafood waste 46 happens at level of the consumer. 47 In the US, an average person wastes 238 pounds of food per year (21 percent of the food they buy), costing them $1,800 per year. 48 In terms of total mass, fresh fruits and vegetables account for the largest losses at the consumer level (19 percent of fruits and 22 percent of vegetables), followed by dairy (20 percent), meat (21 percent) and seafood (31 percent).
Production of food costs in many resources that take a long time to replenish. Even if you remove the world hunger angle from this, why are we producing food in excess?
Obviously, there are some good reasons and problems but many countries pile up on excess buffer stock which is a solvable problem without requiring improvement to the storage and other handling infra, right?
Same for retailers, consumers and restaurants. To certain extent at least. No one is perfect but the current trend is ridiculous.
Check: https://foodprint.org/issues/the-problem-of-food-waste/
Because increased supply is always more efficient. If you want one coconut, growing a coconut tree from scratch is an expensive and time consuming affair. If you want 1 million coconuts, suddenly the infrastructure for growing coconuts is economical. The absolute expense is higher, but the marginal expense is much lower.
Food insecurity in developed countries like the US doesn't mean that there is no food available and you're starving to death. Most food insecurity is people who can't easily get nutritious food that will last in socially acceptable ways. You can hand out the food that a grocery store was going to throw away - food a bit past their shelf life or which has some defect - but this would still count as them being food insecure. Only about 20% of the very food insecure (which is 5.7% of Americans) actually report going a single day without eating.
Again we have situations of logistics problems. If people in an rural rustbelt town are eating cheap junk food because they need to save money to make their mortgage payments, it doesn't do them much good if a grocery store 2 hours away leaves food on the shelf an extra two days. Getting food to the people who need it at a pricepoint they can afford without causing other quality of life problems is the issue. If you deal with the poverty, none of these people are going to have any problem getting a meal.
Seems a bit much, no?
That's almost 19 million people in a developed country.
I understand that food insecurity and hunger is a logistics problem but consumer wastage is still huge. So are other forms of wastage that can be reduced without any problems in efficiency.
One example I gave was excess buffer stock by government in many countries. You can't buy 12 blocks of grains when you only have 10 blocks of storage. I guess, I am naive as to why someone would do that and waste 4 blocks of grain in the process. There is lack of distribution channels here but why purchase excess grains that you can't distribute anyway?
> Because increased supply is always more efficient. If you want one coconut, growing a coconut tree from scratch is an expensive and time consuming affair. If you want 1 million coconuts, suddenly the infrastructure for growing coconuts is economical. The absolute expense is higher, but the marginal expense is much lower.
I am aware. As I said, I don't believe it's more efficient in many cases. We can tackle those. Reducing production is a fine strategy. It might cost more in future to all of us.
I live in a bit deserted place and people use groundwater for farming. They are using excessive resources for a demand that doesn't exist and is artificially created by few actors. This will increase the price of crops in the long term and may make this land unsustainable.
You can argue that overproduction has other problems, certainly the environmental issues are valid, but it is undeniable that producing excessive quantities of food reduces the price.
As for why we would produce more than we need, we like options. Maybe I want a salad tonight, maybe a steak, maybe a sandwich. In buying excess, I have all options open to me and I'll simply throw out whatever I don't choose. If that wasted food could magically teleport into the hands of a starving person, then it would be stupid to let it go to waste. But in reality, if I don't buy it then it will just get thrown out by the grocery store, and if they don't buy it then it won't be grown. Yes it costs resources to grow and transport this excess food, but that's what I'm paying for when I buy it. If the farmer isn't using the money I'm ultimately paying him to replenish the local aquifer, it doesn't matter whether the food he produces gets eaten or buried or turned into weird sex toys.
As for food insecurity being high in developed nations, when you look at how people actually live and how food insecurity is defined, it makes perfect sense. To not be food insecure, you need to buy (not be given) nutritious, high quality (ie more expensive) food. You can survive, however, without paying for nutritious high quality food. A 30 dollar bag of rice will feed an adult for a month; it might not be pleasant but it will suffice. A regular, food secure diet might cost 10 times that much. It's a luxury most of us can afford, but it's still a luxury. Now consider the costs most people have: rent, transportation, healthcare, food. If you have an unexpected expense, you can't pay less rent, or pay less transportation, or stop taking your necessary medication. On the other hand you have a lot of control over the amount you spend on food. If you need 200 extra bucks, eating peanut butter sandwiches for a few days doesn't seem that bad. Most people aren't food insecure for long periods of time, but briefly tighten their belts (literally) during rough patches. If you want people to not be food insecure, you need to solve the problem of them needing more money to get by, which means either getting them more excess income (getting them out of poverty) or reducing unexpected expenses (more social welfare). But unless you make high quality, nutritious food as cheap as low quality food, there will always be some people who forego the luxury.
Hunger is a real issue, overproduction might be an issue, but solving one has no effect on the other.
I already agree that reducing production won't have as much impact on the distribution side.
If you look back again, my point was reducing waste will lead to improvement in the distribution which is slightly different. Perfectly fine food is wasted by retailers and restaurants within easy range of people who might benefit from discounted or free products.
As some tech journalists found a little while back (don't have the links, but it was pretty prominent), boycotting Amazon in all its myriad forms online is all but impossible—so much of the internet's infrastructure currently runs on AWS.
The idea that the correct action for cases such of these is individual action like boycotts, deleting your Facebook account, or ordering goods (at 15% higher prices, with an extra week of shipping delay) from 23 different online specialty retailers or manufacturers instead of Amazon, is bullshit. It's the same logic that says the way to beat global warming is for you to turn off the lights in your bedroom when you leave, rather than fighting to make oil companies cap burning gas flares or whatnot.
Demanding that people give up extra convenience or discounts in order to "send a message" to megacorporations that will never notice, let alone care, until significant double-digit percentages of all global users start doing this, during the most terrifying, emotionally draining, and financially unstable period in living memory is not merely ineffective, it's also deeply insensitive and morally bankrupt.
Giving up Amazon is different. They actually ship me real, tangible items I need. Items that I'd have to track down from different retailers who would more than likely take longer to get those items to me. I'm making an effort to get certain items from other sources (electronics from Newegg, for example), but I'm still a Prime member.
Google is in between, I guess. I use DuckDuckGo by default. But, I admit, I sometimes do a "!g" when I'm not satisfied with DDG's results.
But in all, I'm much more disturbed by what the Social Media giants have been up to than Amazon, Google, and Apple, so there's a bit more motivation in that regard.
The other side of this is that Amazon's marketplace is filled with counterfeit products and is built on questionable labor practices. They are big enough to distort the entire market and make small businesses compete in unnatural/suboptimal ways in order to satisfy Amazon. The fast shipping and some of the cheap pricing is taking advantage of a public good (the Post Office) and it's unclear, especially recently, if Amazon is being given preferential treatment in their contracts.
All in all, while it may be more convenient some of the time, the concentration of power and money is not healthy long term for a democratic country. It seems to me that a properly lead and funded Post Office and a dynamic, competitive marketplace of small and medium sized businesses would provide just as good an experience and doesn't have the risk of market capture or complex lobbying operations popping up.
Practically everyone will have an Apple/Google phone. You can de-Googlfy or de-Applfy but you can't do both.
Facebook, yeah you don't need it. But if you want to see pictures of your nephew and that's where they're posted you don't have much choice.
Microsoft you can get away from but pretty much anyone buying a computer has to pay the MS tax (or the Apple tax). Hard to avoid Office, LinkedIn, or GitHub at work as well.
In fact, polls seem to suggest that's exactly the (seemingly contradictory) viewpoint of many Americans[1].
I suspect the thinking is along the lines of, "Amazon makes my life better, but I worry about their ability to abuse their power in the future."
1. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/18/20870938/b...
Can you explain this mechanic? I see how segmentation can be related to filter bubbles, which cause externalities (political polarization, etc.). I also see how the Internet exposes "the long tail" that previously couldn't be marketed to. But I don't see how this inflates prices exactly.
The classic example of market segmentation, AFAIK, is tomato sauce: They used to think people wanted one kind of tomato sauce; then they discovered they could sell (e.g.) "chunky", "spicy", and "classic", and that people would pay a little more for these.
I guess, to use an analogy, you're saying that there used to be something like "American tomato sauce", which was mass-produced and sold for $5, whereas now there's "Blue state tomato sauce" and "Red state tomato sauce" (and more than these, but let's keep things simple), each selling for $7. And maybe even the old "American tomato sauce" is still on the market, but people are nevertheless willing to spend the extra $2 to get the "Red" and "Blue" varieties for some kind of emotional and/or signaling reasons ("I don't want communist tomato sauce in my pantry"). And that these companies are creating the red/blue fracture in order to capture the extra $2 on each jar.
But, in this analogy, what exactly is the tomato sauce?
I could see the answer being "news" in the feed. I could see the "dollars" being paid by consumers actually being "attention". So then the story becomes that FAAMG are selling eyeballs, which I think is uncontroversial. But to complete the story, you also need to include all the brands that they're selling the eyeballs to. So who are they? Starbucks vs. Chik-Fil-A?
To connect to your earlier lines about "competitive markets" and the "free market virtual game", are you saying that new entrants are shut out by this advertising arms race? Is that how you complete the story?
Your post is vague but gestures at important things. From it, I'm trying to draw the diagram of the complete "triangle trade" (and maybe it's more than three vertices) happening here. What are the pieces?
- Social media (content discovery, filtering, curation). - Content (e.g. news) - Brands (ad buyers) - Consumers (eyeballs)
Something like that?
Can you spell out how this works with specific examples?
To be clear the people driving this do not care about increasing competition in the digital world, they care almost exclusively about advancing the GOP agenda and forcing these companies to be more compliant and cooperative. This is all chilling effect.