|
|
|
|
|
|
by 0verc00ked
3321 days ago
|
|
|
Well of course they were aware. And the Commission should have been aware. Here's a quote that stuck out to me: “Consumer communications services: the Commission found that Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp were not close competitors and that consumers would continue to have a wide choice of alternative consumer communications apps post-merger” The first part doesn’t sound right. If WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger aren’t close competitors, I need to figure out what a competitor is. Hmmm.. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/competitor.html I suppose it's because they are not rivals? They were pre acquisition. Because they definitely operate in a similar industry with a similar product/service. It’s true that consumers can choose to use alternatives. |
|
|
There are hundreds of messenger apps out there that roughly work the same way. If facebook suddenly charged $100/day for whatsapp, people would just use something different. Like Kik or whatever. Its true that those competitors dont really have market share. But thats not the point. They exist and are readily accessible. If facebook wants to shoot itself in the foot in trying to force its customers to use their competitors, thats just healthy competition.
Therefore, there's no real threat of a monopoly here. Facebook bought a network effect, not a monopoly.
Compare that to something like mobile carriers. If At&t buys verizon and spring or whatever they're called, there ARE no other options.
Antitrust laws are mostly about keeping market mechanics in tact. Facebook and Google cant really force anyone to use their products. If their products are too expensive, there are lots of competitors. That's why they want to get rid of net neutrality. Making it expensive to run competing services strengthens their position.