|
|
|
|
|
|
by paulpan
685 days ago
|
|
|
The premise is actually quite similar to the US vs. Standard Oil antitrust case from a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey... Just as Standard Oil used their position to force railroads and other distributors to only carry their oil and not of their competitors', the same case here with Google. Arguably all these antitrust cases, while better late than never, are at least a decade late. If it was filed in the early 2010s, then possibly there could've been viable competitors to Google, Apple, Amazon, and even Meta. But now these tech titans all have unassailable positions. |
|
|
It sometimes seems this way, at least over the near term. But even giants can fall. Time will tell.
It is interesting that their advantages don't solely come from economies of scale or bundling ... there are other factors at work, such as:
1. They leave space for lots of others to make money...
2. ...Until a subspace grows into an attractive product opportunity for the giant to scoop up. How convenient that the market was pre-validated!
3. ...But even competitors that grow powerful are tempted to "defect" and join the Borg by being acquired / absorbed.