|
|
|
|
|
by shishy
2657 days ago
|
|
(I can't find the full article as I'm not an economist subscriber)... Isn't the general idea behind breaking them up that in their current state, these companies are near monopolies and make it impossible for new competition to thrive? Even more so because when they did have competition in the past (e.g. Facebook with Instagram), they just acquired them? I wonder if regulators were not fully aware of this when that merger was happening -- I think Ben Thompson at Stratechery hinted at this in an article some time ago. |
|
Type 1) Very high costs
You are free to build a competitor to Google Search. No one has the resources needed to build it or they don't think it's a good way to spend their resources if they do have them.
Type 2) The nature of the product renders competition difficult
You are free to compete with Facebook. Unfortunately, it's naturally a winner-take-all market because the more users you have, the more each user gets out of the product.
Type 3) The company behaves unfairly
You are not free to compete.
This is the one that most people think of most of the time when they say monopolies are bad. Once you have power, you take actions to maintain your power and crush newcomers.