[HN Gopher] FTC restores rigorous enforcement of law banning unf...
___________________________________________________________________
FTC restores rigorous enforcement of law banning unfair methods of
competition
Author : nabilhat
Score : 484 points
Date : 2022-11-10 19:30 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ftc.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ftc.gov)
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| > Policy statement renews agency's commitment to exercising
|
| Classic Uncle Sam newspeak. If there previously was commitment,
| there'd be no need for restatement and/or renewal. Put another
| way, this is a shameless way of saying, "We've been slacking."
| Bold.
|
| That aside, taking it on its word, this type of hard left turns
| are counter-productive. No one - business or society - likes
| surprises. They need to set a standard, *do their jobs*, and
| stick to it. They might also want to send a memo to The Fed
| asking they refrain from pouring gas on the fire that ultimately
| benefits those best positioned to capitalize on said pouring.
|
| This swerve left only means there'll eventually be a swerve
| right. And back again. Hardly an effective approach.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| wesapien wrote:
| I'll believe it when I see it. These people selectively apply the
| rules.
| [deleted]
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| I'm sure that this won't be applied to Amazon, Apple, Google -
| those donate to the right people. Pretty sure this will be
| applied to the Kochs, Exxon, etc.
|
| They all deserve it, of course, but there's a finger on the
| scales of justice and has been since the 90s.
| tremon wrote:
| And they will continue to do so as long as corporate america is
| as lawless as it is. The FTC can't enforce the rules on
| everyone at the same time, so they have to choose their
| targets. And why should businesses play by the rules if in
| another 8 years at the most the FTC will be gutted again and
| the spectre ofenforcement disappears?
|
| The only way for this to change is if the corporations start
| skirting on the right side of the law, and they won't do that
| voluntarily unless the risk is sufficiently high (see e.g.
| Sarbanes-Oxley). Don't blame the FTC, blame the purposeful
| undermining by alternating administrations.
| rdtwo wrote:
| So we're going to fight mergers and acquisition's when interest
| rates are so high they probably wouldn't have happened anyway
| [deleted]
| nostromo wrote:
| The effect on cheap money on anti-competitive practices is
| massive and almost nobody knows about it.
| munificent wrote:
| Count me as one of the people who doesn't know about it. Can
| you explain more?
| ravel-bar-foo wrote:
| I don't know about this specifically, but my guess is that
| when loans are cheap it is much easier to perform a
| leveraged buyout: taking out a loan on the assets of the
| company being acquired.
| nostromo wrote:
| It's dense, but here's a good paper on it:
| https://www.nber.org/papers/w25505
|
| And here's a more accessible article about the
| relationship: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/how-low-
| interest-rates-c...
| fmajid wrote:
| This won't matter unless the courts in thrall to the Chicago
| School judicial activism of Robert Bork are curbed by Congress.
|
| https://www.theamericanconservative.com/robert-borks-america...
|
| (this is a conservative publication that can't be accused of
| having an axe to grind against Bork, BTW).
| [deleted]
| FredPret wrote:
| Thanks for a fascinating read
| CleverLikeAnOx wrote:
| I wish loyalty programs would be considered unfair competition.
| They are a drain on society.
| [deleted]
| gruez wrote:
| I don't see how they would be considered "unfair competition"
| under any meaningful definition of "unfair competition" (ie.
| something that isn't just "bad for consumers"). It costs
| nothing to sign up for loyalty programs, and being in a loyalty
| program doesn't hinder your ability to comparison shop or go to
| the store with the best deals. Yes, it does require you to jump
| through hoops to get the best price and is effectively price
| discrimination, but I don't see how it's any different than
| other forms of price discrimination (eg. having rotating
| specials so you're forced to plan ahead and/or stock up).
| CleverLikeAnOx wrote:
| It would probably be a stretch and overreach, but the angle I
| would take is that they are competing not on the merit of
| their products.
|
| Consider airline miles. Each time I purchase a ticket,
| instead of choosing the best deal (fair competition), I am
| incentivized to choose an airline I have chosen in the past
| so as not to fragment my points across several accounts. And
| of course, these "rewards" are all a price passed on to the
| consumer.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I have been buying flights for 20 years and not once has
| that crossed my mind.
|
| It goes:
|
| Number of stops -> arrival/departure time -> layover time
| -> cost.
|
| I also feel like I only ever have 1 nonstop flight option,
| maybe 2. Maybe the biggest airports have sufficiently
| redundant flights, but even then, surely most people know
| points are worth 1% at most, and in my experience, flight
| prices differ by hundreds.
|
| I would be confused if I learned people were buying flights
| based on points/miles. I assume the miles/points are mainly
| utilized by very frequent travelers, or people using credit
| card rewards.
| humanizersequel wrote:
| Many, many people (including myself) have cost as their
| first concern, with a deep gulf between other influencing
| factors
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| I agree. I want the Tesco Meal Deal without the bastards
| tracking me.
| headhasthoughts wrote:
| Why should they give you a "deal" that they do at a loss or
| near-loss if you aren't willing to sacrifice the necessary
| currency for it?
|
| Allowing people who don't care about their privacy to sell it
| seems like a fair transaction. Sabotaging capitalism &
| markets by not allowing consumers and producers to engage in
| barter seems inadvisable.
|
| I personally care about my privacy, so I choose not to use
| overbearing services. I don't think that I should rob others
| of the ability to trade their privacy for better deals.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > Allowing people who don't care about their privacy to
| sell it seems like a fair transaction. Sabotaging
| capitalism & markets by not allowing consumers and
| producers to engage in barter seems inadvisable.
|
| This seems intuitively free and fair, but the same
| sentiment is the centrepiece of John Stuart Mill's
| (problematic but fascinating) examination of Harm Principle
| and limits of personal liberty.
|
| Namely; not being able to sell yourself into slavery.
|
| Ordinary people (in the technological age) are not really
| capable of understanding or valuing their privacy and
| weighting the consequences of trading it. For the same
| reason we don't allow children to enter contracts I think
| it could fairly be said the average adult doesn't have
| capacity to "trade their privacy".
| headhasthoughts wrote:
| Why shouldn't they? Are they not people?
|
| Why should the fact that they haven't thought things
| through take away natural rights?
| pasquinelli wrote:
| > I don't think that I should rob others of the ability to
| trade their privacy for better deals.
|
| by allowing the practice, the people that are fine with
| being tracked are imposing a tax on everyone else.
| headhasthoughts wrote:
| No. By allowing the practice, people who are okay with
| being stalked get compensated for their value. People who
| don't consent to the transaction in question are not a
| party to it, and are not being taxed; they're paying the
| regular price.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| don't be silly, they're being upcharged, the people
| getting stalked are paying the regular price.
| headhasthoughts wrote:
| No. The "regular" price is whatever people not opting
| into stalking are paying. Capitalism is based around
| supply and demand, and people who don't want to be
| stalked are willing to pay more. That's not an upcharge.
| That's the default price.
| lozenge wrote:
| It's not a loss or near-loss.
|
| I see it as a dodge around unit pricing. Every price has
| the price per item and the price per 100ml/100g/whatever is
| appropriate. It's the law that applies to all shops that
| aren't small.
|
| Easy to compare, until you come to the discounted prices
| which don't have unit prices printed. They can be multi
| buys, Clubcard offers, bundles, or whatever.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Anyone who cares can pull out their phone and use the
| calculator
| lazide wrote:
| They jack up the 'normal' prices to ludicrous levels so the
| 'discount' price looks like a discount.
|
| Really, the 'discount' price is the original price.
|
| It's a shell game.
| headhasthoughts wrote:
| A fundamental principle of capitalism is that goods will
| sell for what they will be bought for. That's part of the
| deal.
| lazide wrote:
| What is your point exactly?
| headhasthoughts wrote:
| Part of the deal everyone's living under is that we live
| under a system of rough supply and demand. Selling
| something for what people will pay for it is not a shell
| game, it's basic economics. The price for people who
| choose not to be stalked _is_ the default price.
| lazide wrote:
| When pretty much no one pays the 'default' price it loses
| relevance.
|
| In fact, when almost everyone pays the 'stalking' price,
| even when they obviously don't want to be stalked and go
| out of their way to screw with the program and attempt to
| stop the stalking, your comment seems to completely
| ignores actual reality, which is heavily influenced by
| marketing, social pressures, price pressures, etc?
|
| You know, actual market forces in a capitalist
| environment?
|
| A shell game is one where misdirection is used to point
| someone towards an option which benefits the person
| running the game if the other player chooses it, by
| hiding the actual choice they want through confusion and
| obfuscation.
|
| Seems like a perfectly appropriate description here?
| Moissanite wrote:
| Even with the tracking, the inflation resistance of the meal
| deal is a monument to British stoicism.
| melony wrote:
| Better to be tracked than to starve. Absent a state provided
| safety net, cheap food is the next best thing.
| bombcar wrote:
| "Areacode" 867-5309 usually works in the US.
| [deleted]
| tanseydavid wrote:
| That's a 415 area code number, and because Jenny has lived
| in Marin County the entire time (since 1981) she has never
| suffered an area code change like many in the Bay Area have
| over the years. ;)
| shaoonb wrote:
| I think the parent comment was talking about a loyalty card
| discount at a supermarket that (I assume) only exists in
| the UK and Ireland.
| [deleted]
| jetpks wrote:
| > I think the parent comment was talking about a loyalty
| card discount at a supermarket
|
| They are & so is the parent of your post. In the US, it's
| common for supermarket cashiers to lookup loyalty cards
| by the customer's phone number. The comment you replied
| to is saying that the phone number <area-code>-867-5309
| is almost always tied to an existing loyalty card. Lots
| of people just give that phone number if they want the
| discounts without signing up.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yep, there may be a similar "famous" number in other
| countries.
|
| You can also get a copy of a barcode by various nefarious
| means, if needed.
| elgenie wrote:
| For anyone not getting the cultural reference, it's due to
| a 40 year old pop song that used that phone number (as one
| belonging to a Jenny to be called "for a good time").
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTdTwcmxyo
|
| In the overwhelming majority of US television and movies,
| onscreen phone numbers are of the form 555-xxxx to prevent
| clashes with those telecoms actually hand out. However,
| numbers of the form 867-xxxx are perfectly valid; and when
| Brown University made the mistake of handing out 867-5309
| to an unfortunate dorm room around 1999 or so, those people
| were deluged with phone calls asking for Jenny.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Perhaps (281) 330-8004 is the more modern equivalent :)
| elgenie wrote:
| Hate to break it you, but that particular Mike Jones
| (who?) masterwork is nearing voting age.
|
| Mr Jones also included the area code, didn't repeat the
| number in the chorus, and didn't put it in the song
| title; and "Back Then" also wasn't nearly as ubiquitous.
| kelnos wrote:
| I wonder if some stores flag it. I've used it a lot with
| success, but once in a Walgreens they asked me for the name
| on the loyalty account after I punched it in.
| justincormack wrote:
| UK does have official "media phone numbers"
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-
| internet/inform... but none that are widely known and used
| I think.
| silisili wrote:
| I don't get them, honestly.
|
| Kroger for example. Jacks prices wayyy up without 'Plus.'
|
| Being clever, I decided to 'sign up' manually but never filled
| out the form or sent it in. Still gave me discounts.
|
| Tell others about my newfound secret, and they laugh and tell
| me they're doing the same tracking and more via my credit card.
| Doh.
|
| What was the point of the loyalty card then?
| autoexec wrote:
| > What was the point of the loyalty card then?
|
| the main point of loyalty cards was (and still is) data
| collection (which you've managed to work around) but they are
| also being used to help condition the public into accepting
| the idea that some people get (or even "deserve" to get)
| different prices than other people for the exact same items
| because of who or what they are.
|
| For example:
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/Business/supermarkets-introduce-
| perso...
|
| https://risnews.com/safeway-offers-personalized-pricing-
| prog...
|
| Businesses always try to frame this as allowing them to offer
| "deals" to you, but honestly what they want is to raise
| prices just for you. They stand to make a killing on
| personalized dynamic pricing. It could massively inflate
| their profits (entirely at your expense) but what has been
| standing in their way so far is that consumers find
| personalized pricing to be invasive, unfair, and
| discriminatory. Businesses are working very hard to get the
| public to accept personalized pricing though and loyalty
| cards/programs are seen as a way to help that.
|
| Unless you like being ripped off and being taken advantage
| of, try to resist and push back against personalized pricing
| when you see it.
|
| See:
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41272-019-00224-3
| [deleted]
| atty wrote:
| As someone who worked at Kroger ~10 years ago, even then
| credit cards were probably only 60-70% of payments. A lot of
| cash and checks. The loyalty programs had their start when it
| wasn't quite so easy to track purely via payment. Also helps
| to connect a person with a definite address to mail
| brochures/coupons to, and to link accounts when someone
| changes credit card numbers, etc.
| silisili wrote:
| > credit cards were probably only 60-70% of payments
|
| Do you think it's still that way today? I really have no
| idea. I worked grocery 20 years ago and remember being
| amazed how many people pay cash. I can't remember the last
| time I've seen someone pay with a check at the grocery. I
| see cash here and there, but mostly credit or tap. But I
| have no idea what the breakdown would be.
| bombcar wrote:
| I saw a check written recently but it has to be the first
| I've seen in years.
|
| I think the loyalty programs are mainly about price
| segmentation and co-marketing now.
| [deleted]
| myroon5 wrote:
| Price discrimination based on who cares enough to jump
| through hoops, similar to coupons
| Nomentatus wrote:
| Note that this statement, while semantically true, is highly
| misleading: "Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act in
| 1914 because it was unhappy with the enforcement of the Sherman
| Act, the original antitrust statute." In truth, the laws were
| harsher vs anticompetitive conduct _before_ the Sherman Act was
| passed, with a history going back hundreds of years (in England)
| under the rubrick "Restraint of Trade." This was common law, not
| statute law.
|
| The Sherman Act was the first statute, true, but its main
| function was to kneecap common law penalties by limiting penalty
| amounts. President Harrison was sincere about limiting
| monopolies, according to his writings, at least, but it's not at
| all clear that sly John Sherman (brother of railroad president
| and General William Tecumsah Sherman), was.
| [deleted]
| abecedarius wrote:
| Do you have a favorite short review of these issues from this
| point of view?
| riazrizvi wrote:
| A good thing, since fair methods of competition is the single
| differentiating policy of the USA that put it into a dominant
| world position over the last 200+ years. See Why Nations Fail by
| Acemoglu and Robinson.
| hitekker wrote:
| I looked into "Why Nations Fail" and it looks like it wasn't
| persuasive enough to survive the last decade.
| http://whynationsfail.com is a defunct website.
|
| I think Bill Gates summarizes the theory's weakness well:
| https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Nations-Fail
| MR4D wrote:
| The two big oceans on either side of us helped quite a bit. Not
| being an easy target of your enemies might matter more than any
| given policy.
| edwnj wrote:
| Doesn't make you an economic hegemon.. India is similarly
| protected by an ocean on both sides and the Himalayan
| mountains..
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| India is directly bordered by their biggest rival that they
| have constant conflicts with.
| largepeepee wrote:
| Well India didn't have an event where the locals that spoke
| different were massacred or reeducated/"civilized" like the
| other super powers of the US and China.
|
| Actually the idea of modern India is mostly a product of
| the British, so in that aspect they are a young nation.
| kazen44 wrote:
| To add to this, decolonization of the british raj wasn't
| all roses and sunshine either. (the split of india and
| pakistan was especially)
| selimthegrim wrote:
| You might want to look into "dasas"
| jjk166 wrote:
| The US really hit the geographic jackpot - long coasts with
| good harbors on Earth's two biggest oceans, an immense river
| system connecting basically the whole agricultural heartland,
| an immense area with good soil and temperate climate capable
| of supporting large scale agriculture, substantial oil
| reserves and other mineral wealth, and few regions prone to
| natural disasters. It's hard to imagine a better starting
| position.
| fendy3002 wrote:
| Considering that the current America is a product of
| European colonization, I'd say it lacks technology
| advancement early on.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Given that places like Egypt, India, Mesoamerica, etc
| were all colonized by Europe despite long histories of
| advanced civilizations, I don't see how European
| colonization would imply a place isn't capable of
| technological advancement.
| righttty wrote:
| themitigating wrote:
| Germany and Japan were devastated by WW2 and are now both
| economic powerhouses
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Both countries were rebuilt almost entirely by USA in the
| aftermath.
| kazen44 wrote:
| don't forget that the Marshall aid also prevent a massive
| economic crisis in the US.
|
| After world war 2, employment collapsed because of the
| downturn of the war economy.
|
| From a realpolitik perspective, its a smart move. Using
| the marshall aid to get influence in europe, prevent your
| main competitor from gaining further foothold on the
| continent and also having market (which requires a near
| complete rebuildup) for your economy to divert to after
| the collapse of the war economy.
| yrgulation wrote:
| And war reparations germany never made. Fortunately
| everyone is now well aware of the damage germany is
| making to europe. We also know how germany treated east
| europe by attempting to share it with russia. The
| pipeline was a warning shot: change course of suffer
| consequences.
| PKop wrote:
| Germany had their cheap energy trade agreement with Russia
| blocked for years by US, and recently had their pipelines
| attacked. Their ability to freely grow in power is
| constrained. _If_ they got as even close to as powerful as
| the US did or were even rising as they have been recently,
| their neighbors would meddle in their affairs and block
| their progress. Russia, France, UK, etc. So, US not having
| a close competitor has aided them greatly in dominating
| their hemisphere and using the resources available to them
| to grow into the global power.
| eternalban wrote:
| Germany dominates EU. The French-German duo have been
| cooperating for years now. The limits prior to Putin's
| folly were on German militarization. The French required
| that given the history between the two. For years in fact
| there have been vocal voices asking Germany to
| politically act according to its economic stature.
|
| This singling out of Germany from Europe is Russian
| propaganda. The core message, as you obviously have
| learned, is "US is keeping Europe under its thumbs
| because it is afraid of losing its dominance." What they
| neglected to add was that this is also the position of
| many European elites, who do -not- want to go back to
| Europe before Pax Americana.
|
| In fact, just as in US, so too in Europe and Asia, there
| is a division amongst the elite regarding the current
| global regime. It is clear why a loser like Russia would
| want this, but would say Japan or Taiwan, or France, or
| even Germany, want to go back to a world where 'balance
| of powers' and periodic 'big wars' are par per course?
|
| As for US, that bill from Pentagon is not just for
| 'keeping America safe'. No. It is the price of the
| replacement of the British Empire and its maintenance of
| global finance and trade. That shit costs a lot of money.
| So if we decide to go "multi-polar", we no longer have to
| spend that much money - let the East Asians duke it out
| over who controls the island chains. US will remain a
| powerhouse in every way.
|
| p.s.
|
| re-read the above and the point is opaque. The 'cost' of
| living in the American era for other countries is
| possibility of having to sacrifice their national
| interest in the interest of the global order. US does
| this routinely btw (which gets a certain subset of
| Americans quite upset as you know) and so it's not just
| asking say Germany to give up cheap Russian oil. Remember
| us giving a whole chunk of our industrial base to China?
| That was not in our purely national interest but it was
| in the interest of having a peaceful global order. China
| had to be integrated.
|
| So, this is my recommendation for all "multi-polar" fans.
| Reflect on this: WW3, if it happens, will happen post
| multi-polarity. Just like #1 and #2 followed the
| breakdown of Concert of Europe in 19th century.
| eternalban wrote:
| http://www.sgdsn.gouv.fr/uploads/2022/11/revue-nationale-
| str...
| yrgulation wrote:
| Yeah but things are about to change for germany. At best it
| will stagnate.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Which is also why Canada enjoys easy politics about their
| border protection.
|
| There are no tunnels or fence-jumpers between Lancaster and
| Tolstoi.
| akomtu wrote:
| There are kayakers, but those are usually civilized.
| xmonkee wrote:
| Kinda unkind to imply immigrants are not civilized.
| voz_ wrote:
| Illegal immigrants are by definition knowingly breaking a
| law, a rather uncivilized act. Kayakers or border
| hoppers, regardless of country of origin, are not
| behaving in a civilized way.
|
| - signed, a legal immigrant
| colinmhayes wrote:
| breaking a law is not an uncivilized act. Everyone breaks
| laws all the time
| xmonkee wrote:
| I am also a legal immigrant, and it was kinda easy being
| one because of the luck of being born in a particular set
| of circumstances. If someone is crossing a border because
| they are failing to feed their family without it, that's
| a highly civilized act. Please don't demonize people just
| because they life has been harder than you understand.
| voz_ wrote:
| Sorry, where do people cross borders due to starvation?
| Not the US, certainly.
| luckydata wrote:
| and the big piece of land full of resources the colonizers
| stole right in the middle of those two oceans might have been
| a factor too.
|
| the remarkable thing is what a terrible, unlivable, ugly
| nation we built out of all that wealth. The Romans built
| imperial Rome, the French empire built Paris, the US
| government built... a beige car dependent urban sprawl.
|
| Americans should be ashamed of themselves.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > the US government built... a beige car dependent urban
| sprawl.
|
| So I agree... BUT its survivor bias. A middle class
| American (say median income), would absolutely rather take
| suburban America in the most soulless subdevelopement over
| whatever a median income roman would live in.
|
| The pretty things in Rome stayed 2000 years because people
| liked it. Think of everything that didn't make it. They
| also had hundreds of years more to build them than the US
| has had. The Empire State Building, much of DC, victorian
| homes in SF... there's plenty of lasting beauty in America.
| Many more cities with many more opportunities for lasting
| beauty. Just look at Boston, its a dynamic city with a mix
| of old and new... its an example of what the next Rome may
| look like 2000 years from now.
| fallingknife wrote:
| I would bet every dollar I have that if you had to live in
| imperial Rome, or Paris during the French Empire, that you
| would be begging to go back to this "terrible, unlivable,
| ugly nation."
| moonchrome wrote:
| Does that apply to South America and Mexico ?
| ochoseis wrote:
| Sapiens and Guns, Germs and Steel discuss this some. The US
| also benefits greatly from its geography. Good farming land
| that stretches through a consistent latitude allows you to
| use similar techniques and crops across. The same is not
| true for more mountainous and longitudinally-oriented
| areas. I believe this applies more to continents than
| individual countries, and South America is definitely
| narrower and taller than the US.
| deaddodo wrote:
| Guns, Germs and Steel is heavily discredited among the
| history and anthropology fields.
|
| Sapiens is pretty decent, though the first half is better
| than the second.
| boc wrote:
| The Accidental Superpower is a good book that goes deeper
| on this topic.
| MR4D wrote:
| Yes on the oceans, but having either jungle and/or a
| mountain range bifurcating a country tends to make it
| expensive to integrate into a cohesive country, so the
| benefits become more limited.
| jjk166 wrote:
| The lack of military invasions has certainly been a boon,
| but not sufficient to overcome the issues left over by
| Spanish/Portuguese style colonialism which created land
| owning aristocracies and rampant corruption. Argentina,
| Brazil, and Chile really all ought to be superpowers and
| Venezuela could have been richer than Saudi Arabia.
| riazrizvi wrote:
| So the more inaccessible your country is then the more likely
| you are to have a roaring economy? That doesn't make sense.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Inaccessible to enemy tanks, yes. The UK, Switzerland,
| Australia, Japan, etc all benefit from the fact that it is
| very hard to march an army into their territory and thus
| they can build factories and infrastructure confident
| tjhey're not going to be destroyed, and engage in trade
| freely confident that they are not empowering someone who
| will destroy them.
| cheriot wrote:
| Specifically, the US was outside the range of WW2 weapons.
| At the end of the war our factories were the only ones
| left. Secret sauce of the American economic boom.
| permo-w wrote:
| don't forget selling weapons, fuel and vehicles to both
| sides. at the end of WW2, the US had 2/3 of the world's
| gold. that didn't come from nowhere
| _-david-_ wrote:
| US was in range of WW2 weapons or Pearl Harbor wouldn't
| have happened. Sure it took more resources and
| coordination then just shooting a missile, but Japan
| clearly in range.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Battle of Midway happened in 1942, smooth sailing from
| there.
| quadcore wrote:
| In that regard, having (almost) the whole population owning
| firearms is probably quite a strong deterent as well.
| [deleted]
| WalterBright wrote:
| When selecting a price for your product, you have three choices:
|
| 1. lower than the competition - unfair competition, dumping,
| predatory pricing
|
| 2. same as the competition - collusion, price fixing
|
| 3. higher than the competition - gouging, profiteering
|
| All three price points are illegal.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| First of all, the article (and original source [1]) doesn't
| actually discuss pricing. Page 12 starts a list of historic
| examples, none mention pricing.
|
| Important quote (page 8):
|
| > "The method of competition must be unfair, meaning that the
| conduct goes beyond competition on the merits. Competition on
| the merits may include, for example, superior products or
| services, superior business acumen, truthful marketing and
| advertising practices, investment in research and development
| that leads to innovative outputs, or attracting employees and
| workers through the offering of better employment terms."
|
| Second of all, this is intentionally one-sided perspective to
| say all are illegal (its not). Personally, I say screw the
| giant corps, do what's best for people in society, even at the
| expense of profit margins. Why do we sympathize with giant
| corporations? With inflation rising, IMO we should expect that
| business take smaller profit margins to keep prices from
| inflating higher. What is the harm in shareholders missing out
| on profits a bit in 2022? Surely less to society than all the
| lower-income folks missing out on buying food.
|
| To address the "all three prices are illegal" point (which,
| again, is not true)
|
| 1. If you price your product at a loss in the attempt to drive
| your competition out of business, then maybe this applies, but
| only maybe.
|
| 2. Only if you actually collude/price fix. You can find the
| same natural market price as competition without collusion.
| Coffee shops sell coffee at similar prices because the all the
| businesses have similar costs, and consumers have a limit to
| their willingness to spend.
|
| 3. Only if you do it under limited circumstances. Price gouging
| is rare. BMW doesn't price gouge for selling more expensive
| cars than Toyota, but buying 100% of the supply of a drug and
| 100x'ing the price just to make more money is bad for society,
| and more likely to be price gouging.
|
| [1]
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P221202Section5...
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Personally, I say screw the giant corps
|
| Giant corps are the engines that drive the economy. Take them
| away, and you've got an economy in the dumpster. (Small
| businesses are the future. A healthy economy requires both.)
|
| > we should expect that business take smaller profit margins
| to keep prices from inflating higher
|
| Businesses neither aid nor retard inflation. Inflation is a
| monetary phenomenon caused by deficit spending. If you want
| less inflation, vote against the deficit spenders.
|
| > which, again, is not true
|
| Amusingly, your exposition admits they are all illegal,
| although selectively applied. Mostly for BS reasons, like
| Microsoft being charged with giving away a browser for free
| (no harm to consumers was ever established).
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Giant corps are the engines that drive the economy. Take
| them away, and you've got an economy in the dumpster.
|
| I didn't say take them away, I said don't prioritize them.
| There is no reason to cater to big corporations. No one
| will voluntarily not make more money, so there is no reason
| to assume that regulation will disincentive growth. Same
| way taxes don't stop people from wanting to make more
| money.
|
| Make corporations do things that are in societies interest,
| not their own. Why do we require people to sign up for the
| draft or pay taxes? Not because people want to enlist, but
| because its good for society. Why do we require drivers
| licenses and car insurance and air bags? Because having
| competence and protections is good.
|
| > Businesses neither aid nor retard inflation.
|
| Today, there is record inflation constantly in the news.
| Many businesses are also posting larger profit margins. We
| could lower prices closer to their pre-inflation values if
| they lowered their profit margins to pre-inflation values
| too.
|
| > your exposition admits they are all illegal, although
| selectively applied.
|
| Yea, thats the difference between legal and not illegal in
| most cases?
|
| Driving 50 mph is illegal in a school zone but not a
| highway. Its even more illegal to drive 50 mph into a group
| of children crossing the road in said school zone. The laws
| protect against behavior that is bad _in a certain
| context_.
|
| > Mostly for BS reasons, like Microsoft being charged with
| giving away a browser for free
|
| The Microsoft case rested on the fact that bundling the
| product restricted market entrants ability to compete, not
| on pricing.
|
| > (no harm to consumers was ever established)
|
| Thats not necessary to prove anti-competitive. Anti-
| competitive is when you're bad for competition not
| consumers. Specifically, the FTC claims that their purpose
| is to prevent monopolies, not to prevent consumer harm...
|
| > ...the legislative history is replete with statements to
| the effect that Congress wanted the FTC to stop monopolies
| in their "incipiency"...
| WalterBright wrote:
| > I said don't prioritize them
|
| You said screw them.
|
| > We could lower prices closer to their pre-inflation
| values if they lowered their profit margins to pre-
| inflation values too
|
| That's a fantasy. Communist countries have inflation, too
| (and higher), and the industries don't make any profits.
|
| > Yea, thats the difference between legal and not illegal
| in most cases?
|
| The difference here is extremely subjective. Selective
| prosecution is a real thing, and it's not about whether a
| crime was committed or not.
|
| > The Microsoft case rested on the fact that bundling the
| product restricted market entrants ability to compete,
| not on pricing.
|
| It was about giving it away for free. (Microsoft never
| tried to prevent Netscape from running.) Note that
| everybody gives it away for free today. As for bundling,
| operating systems have always "bundled" all sorts of
| programs and utilities. My Kindle even comes with a
| browser "bundled" into it. Oh, the humanity!
|
| Apple's walled garden ecosystem is far, far more
| anticompetitive than MS and Explorer, and not a peep from
| the Justice Dept.
|
| > Specifically, the FTC claims that their purpose is to
| prevent monopolies, not to prevent consumer harm...
|
| Or maybe Bill Gates did not acknowledge the authority of
| the FTC and the FTC decided to show him who's the boss.
| This is not unfounded, there was a fair amount of talk
| about that at the time.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > You said screw them.
|
| Yea, I said I don't prioritize them. Glad we agree.
|
| > That's a fantasy.
|
| yea. Corps of course would never give up profit margin
| voluntarily.
|
| > Communist countries have inflation, too (and higher),
| and the industries don't make any profits.
|
| Why are we talking about communism? Some of them have
| inflation, some don't. Some industries make profit, some
| don't.
|
| > The difference here is extremely subjective.
|
| Good things there's a body to investigate.
|
| > Selective prosecution is a real thing, and it's not
| about whether a crime was committed or not.
|
| Hmm i don't know that doesn't seem right.
|
| > It was about giving it away for free.
|
| Price is a component of this case, but its not about the
| price, its about the business decisions and impact it had
| on the particular market.
|
| > Note that everybody gives it away for free today.
|
| So no more price undercutting.
|
| > My Kindle even comes with a browser "bundled" into it.
|
| Good thing there was a market for browsers. It'd be a
| shame if that never formed.
|
| > Oh, the humanity!
|
| Now we're thinking of the right people in these cases.
|
| > Apple's walled garden ecosystem is far, far more
| anticompetitive than MS and Explorer, and not a peep from
| the Justice Dept.
|
| I agree. And I suspect this new FTC statement is a
| warning that it'll change.
|
| > the FTC decided to show him who's the boss.
|
| And they did. And they won.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > 2. same as the competition - collusion, price fixing
|
| Only true if you arrived at those prices via collusion
|
| > 3. higher than the competition - gouging, profiteering
|
| In the US gouging is pretty much always legally defined as
| "raising prices by [xx%] in the immediate aftermath of a civil
| emergency on necessary items". People might use the terms
| colloquially but that doesn't make it illegal.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Only true if you arrived at those prices via collusion
|
| The same prices is evidence enough of collusion to file
| charges.
|
| > In the US gouging is pretty much always legally defined as
| "raising prices by [xx%] in the immediate aftermath of a
| civil emergency on necessary items"
|
| I.e. they can file such charges whenever they like. Note that
| this does not take into account the cost of supplying these
| goods.
| [deleted]
| dheera wrote:
| Clearly the answer is a price that isn't disclosed online, and
| requires the customer to fill out a form disclosing their name
| ("ethnicity"), address ("socioeconomic status"), and
| title/company ("education level") before they can receive a
| quote on the item. /s
| lesuorac wrote:
| Except they're not.
|
| 1) If your costs are legitimately less than the competition
| then charging less is not illegal. If you're taking a loss to
| gain market share and then upping the price once the
| competitors go out of business that's a problem.
|
| 2) Have you seen gas stations? If setting your price to be the
| same was illegal there'd be so many convicted people.
|
| 3) I don't remember profiteering being illegal. Literally a ton
| of companies have been recording record profit and certainly
| people have been complaining but who was fined/imprisoned?
| Martin Shkreli wasn't convicted of profiteering cause it's not
| a crime.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > are legitimately less
|
| Cost accounting is not a rigorous discipline. It involves a
| lot of assumptions, guesswork, and handwaving.
|
| > taking a loss to gain market share and then upping the
| price once the competitors go out of business that's a
| problem.
|
| Present a case history of this.
|
| > If setting your price to be the same
|
| They rarely seem to be at the same price
|
| > I don't remember profiteering being illegal
|
| Remember all those anti-gouging laws? Warren wants to extend
| them.
|
| https://fee.org/articles/why-elizabeth-warrens-proposed-
| anti...
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > Present a case history of this.
|
| Amazon versus Diapers.com
|
| https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-
| be...
| WalterBright wrote:
| Not really, diapers.com sold their business to Amazon,
| and nobody demonstrated that Amazon sold diapers below
| cost.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Sold after they were practically run out of business by
| Amazon's pricing.
|
| > Quidsi could now taste its own blood. At one point,
| Quidsi executives took what they knew about shipping
| rates, factored in Procter & Gamble's (PG) wholesale
| prices, and calculated that Amazon was on track to lose
| $100 million over three months in the diaper category
| alone.
|
| You're right it has not been demonstrated. Maybe some
| governing body should investigate and come to a
| conclusion about whether Amazon engages in unfair methods
| of competition such as what is purported by Quidsi.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > You're right it has not been demonstrated.
|
| That's right. Quidsi had no particular insight into
| Amazon's cost structure.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Is a retailer now obliged to run _every single product_
| they sell at a profit? So Costco can 't do their chicken
| deal (which costs them millions and customers love),
| nobody is allowed loss leaders?
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Generally speaking, no.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| It was tongue in cheek.
|
| I'm saying: Amazon's diaper thing was the same as
| Costco's chicken thing. Retailers shouldn't be obliged to
| run every single product at a profit just in case there
| is a single product retailer.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| I'm saying that no one ever said you shouldn't be allowed
| to do loss leaders. Predatory pricing is a specific set
| of actions in a specific context that happen to do with
| selling products at a loss for a period of time.
|
| e.g. Driving a car is legal, driving the getaway car for
| a bank robbery is not.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| I believe you have a good understanding of the nuances
| here. But I also believe that the nuances can be used by
| career hungry folks at the relevant agencies to bring
| bogus cases against companies almost at will (current
| case against Meta is an example) and any extra power
| granted (or taken) is a bad thing.
| bombcar wrote:
| https://www.readmargins.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage
| Smells like it could have become a case of it.
| [deleted]
| notacoward wrote:
| > All three price points are illegal.
|
| All _potentially_ illegal, but more often legal and not even
| controversial. The important distinction is whether the prices
| were set to maintain or exploit a non-competitive situation,
| vs. to compete in a still fair /open market. There's no issue
| with undercutting competitors if they exist. There's no issue
| with charging a brand premium. In either case, competitors can
| respond as they see fit. It's only when there are no
| competitors that these choices deserve scrutiny.
| ElfinTrousers wrote:
| This sounds nice...but talk is cheap. Let's see what the FTC
| actually does before we get excited.
| [deleted]
| Zigurd wrote:
| Twitter's C-level privacy, compliance, and security management
| resigned today (yesterday maybe?). Twitter is currently under two
| FTC consent decrees. Probably unrelated to anticompetitive
| practices, but interesting timing.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Awesome, when can I expect to see an alternative to Comcast for
| high-speed (>=1gbps) internet in the Bay Area? The fact that all
| of Silicon Valley cannot solve this problem after decades is
| telling of the power of their monopoly.
| [deleted]
| ec109685 wrote:
| AT&T Fiber is good.
| MarkSweep wrote:
| Except that they make you use AT&T's crappy router and charge
| you a monthly fee for it.
|
| I like Wave Broadband better where available.
| kelnos wrote:
| I live in San Francisco, and my only option for high-speed is
| Comcast. AT&T's fiber trunk runs a block away from me, but
| they are unwilling to run fiber to my home, and have
| suggested it would be several tens of thousands of dollars if
| I were to get it done myself.
| anyfoo wrote:
| I guess Sonic did not extend their network to your part of
| SF yet?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ISPs are natural monopolies. That's not to say the government
| shouldn't do anything to improve the situation, but I think
| it's quite different from what the FTC did today.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| ISPS are almost a natural monopoly, until you consider that
| many municipalities have exclusive deals with one or two of
| them.
|
| Even if someone had the startup costs, they would literally
| not be allowed to compete because of collusion between
| government and entrenched business.
| bombcar wrote:
| Literally entrenched - someone has to run the wires and dig
| the holes.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Then they should be nationalized. The market cannot be
| trusted with quintessential market failures. Public
| infrastructure should be just that: public.
| [deleted]
| anyfoo wrote:
| Sonic is fantastic.
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| Wish they serviced my neighborhood.
| CaptainNegative wrote:
| Sonic is capped at 10Mb/s in many areas where last mile is
| effectively a DSL bottleneck.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Ah, I was specifically talking about Sonic Fiber, which is
| 1Gbps (but apparently exists in a 10Gbps variant for
| businesses as well). Too bad it does not service all of SF
| so far.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Following the links, here's the actual meat of what "unfair
| methods of competition" means [1, pg 9]:
|
| > _There are two key criteria to consider when evaluating whether
| conduct goes beyond competition on the merits. First, the conduct
| may be coercive, exploitative, collusive, abusive, deceptive,
| predatory, or involve the use of economic power of a similar
| nature. It may also be otherwise restrictive or exclusionary,
| depending on the circumstances, as discussed below. Second, the
| conduct must tend to negatively affect competitive conditions.
| This may include, for example, conduct that tends to foreclose or
| impair the opportunities of market participants, reduce
| competition between rivals, limit choice, or otherwise harm
| consumers._
|
| > _...the second part of the principle examines whether the
| respondent's conduct has a tendency to generate negative
| consequences; for instance, raising prices, reducing output,
| limiting choice, lowering quality, reducing innovation, impairing
| other market participants, or reducing the likelihood of
| potential or nascent competition._
|
| And selecting from some given examples [taken from pg 13-15]:
|
| > _loyalty rebates, tying, bundling, and exclusive dealing
| arrangements that have the tendency to ripen into violations of
| the antitrust laws by virtue of industry conditions and the
| respondent's position within the industry_
|
| > _de facto tying, bundling, exclusive dealing, or loyalty
| rebates that use market power in one market to entrench that
| power or impede competition in the same or a related market_
|
| > _using market power in one market to gain a competitive
| advantage in an adjacent market by, for example, utilizing
| technological incompatibilities to negatively impact competition
| in adjacent markets_
|
| [1]
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P221202Section5...
| moonchrome wrote:
| This is basically iPhone/iOS and AppStore/Safari.
|
| There's been a lot of talk globally but I'm still waiting to
| see who will be the first to move on Apple's rent seeking
| tactics.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| It seems like it's pretty clearly going to be the EU? The
| Digital Markets Act takes effect in 2023.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Again we are here with HN lawyers not being lawyers.
|
| You realize that every retail store sales at prices higher
| than wholesale.
|
| Edit: wholesale instead of retail.
| mftb wrote:
| Parent comment doesn't seem to only be talking about
| prices. He's talking about Safari being the only browser on
| iOS. Other vendors are only allowed to reskin it.
| AJ007 wrote:
| Imagine if Microsoft had not only bundled Internet
| Explorer with Windows but also blocked all other
| competing browsers!
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Yes we would have the market dominated by one browser
| engine by a BigTech company where most of the other
| browsers are just reskins...oh wait.
|
| At least there is Firefox - which also gets most of its
| funding by the same BigTech company.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And it is still not "rent seeking" to only allow one
| browser. "Words Mean Things".
| moonchrome wrote:
| WebKit lock in is a way to prevent web apps from
| disrupting appstore cash cow. Appstore is rentseeking on
| popularity/market position of the iPhone/iOS - and
| clearly worded above - appstore distribution monopoly is
| anticompetitive.
| astrange wrote:
| If other browsers were allowed, a lot more sites would
| become Chrome-only, and you might end up with only one
| browser again.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| This is another meme. It was revealed in the Epic trial
| that 80% of App Store revenue comes from games - that
| would not be in the browser anyway.
|
| If the lack of alternate browsers are the only thing
| stopping app developers from making better PWAs, then why
| are all the same developers making iOS apps, Android apps
| and web apps instead of just making iOS apps and web
| apps?
|
| And where are all of the successful profitable Android
| apps that are bypassing the Play Store?
| moonchrome wrote:
| Umm apple was the slowest to adopt webgl 2.0 to the point
| where it was pointless targeting it because you didn't
| have reach. And WebKit blocks a lot of other standards.
|
| If iOS had open browser engines I guarantee you two
| things :
|
| - evolution of web standards would be different
|
| - web mobile games would be a thing
|
| The 30% cut would incentivise big distributors to invest
| in it (Epic/Steam). It was enough to get epic to risk
| getting baned from appstore
| scarface_74 wrote:
| > web mobile games would be a thing
|
| If Apple is holding back "web mobile games", why aren't
| developers making games for iOS and the web instead of
| iOS and Android? As a mobile game developer wouldn't it
| be logical to skip making a native game for Android and
| just make one for the web that covers Android and
| computers?
| calsy wrote:
| Just because Android devices can allow for alternative
| stores, doesn't mean in anyway that it's easy to setup,
| nor is it simple to write software in the limited sandbox
| provided that needs to work independently of Google
| services. This is all by design.
|
| So, how successful do you think a store would be if its
| made difficult to install and difficult to create
| software for? Is it any surprise there are no successful
| profitable apps?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Then let's limit the discussion to alternate web
| browsers. If the only reason that Apple is keeping
| alternate browsers out is because of losing App Store
| revenue, then we should have plenty of successful "apps"
| that are iOS/web only instead of iOS/Android/web.
| [deleted]
| calsy wrote:
| Are browsers the same as app stores? Are browsers
| designed to search for vetted web apps and provide an
| environment for them to run without the browser bulk? Are
| browsers designed for ease of purchase? Are alternative
| browsers supposed to be competition for app stores?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| From the person I originally replied to:
|
| > WebKit lock in is a way to prevent web apps from
| disrupting appstore cash cow
| calsy wrote:
| I'm not aware of any proof this is the case. Regardless
| of platform, what business is going to invest the time
| and money required to make a competing platform for app
| delivery on mobile that rivals the current stores? Both
| Google and Apple can shutdown you down in an instant if
| they were to consider you a competitive threat. Why
| bother?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| So businesses won't invest time and money to create a
| browser. But companies will invest literally billions of
| dollars collectively to develop other software?
|
| The Mozilla cooperation mostly survives because of Google
| funding it to be the default search engine. Even
| Microsoft decided it didn't make sense to keep developing
| its own browser engine. How is a company going to make
| money creating browser? No company has successful made a
| profit from people paying for a browser - ever.
|
| Yes, I was around and into computers when the first
| browsers came out. I was actually writing extensions to a
| custom Mac Gopher server before the web became popular.
| calsy wrote:
| Ok so now we are going into the history of browsers, who
| said anything about paying for browsers. Your argument
| was 'why are web apps not popular on Android then', and I
| explained why.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| How is Apple or Google going to "shut down" a web app?
| calsy wrote:
| By making it so cumbersome to use that people won't
| bother with it.
| [deleted]
| mftb wrote:
| It's definitely exclusionary. You could argue that it's
| exclusionary for legitimate reasons, but it's
| exclusionary.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Browsers are inherently insecure. Even Apple now has an
| optional "lock down mode" where it turns off performance
| enhancements in Safari browser that are historically
| vectors used to hack devices
| mftb wrote:
| That's a real stretch in a conversation about anti-
| competitive practices. These practices were a problem for
| consumers when MS employed them on Windows and they're a
| problem now on iOS. Specific to your point, browser
| vendors competing fairly would almost certainly find
| advantage in offering the most secure browser, thereby
| improving the platform for all, including Apple.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| How is it a stretch? Even Apple is admitting that sone of
| its performance optimizations in the browser may lead to
| insecurities.
|
| Who is going to make a more secure browser? Google?
| Firefox? Every other popular browser is just a Chromium
| reskin outside of Safari and Firefox.
| mftb wrote:
| I'm purposefully leaving aside the security question and
| will just respond with a new question of my own. Why
| would anyone even think of getting into the browser game
| when they're locked out of competing on arguably the
| single most important platform in the world?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Wouldn't that be Android with 70% market share in mobile
| followed by PCs?
| [deleted]
| calsy wrote:
| Every retail store sales at price higher than retail? Do
| they now... I just bought GoW Ragnorok at retail $30
| cheaper than its listing on the PSN Store. This is the same
| for most new release titles, retail is cheaper.
|
| Besides, you can't compare the real world with digital. The
| real world isn't a near infinite space with millions of
| items are available in a single place for everyone in the
| country with a connected device to view and purchase.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And it's still selling more than its wholesale cost. Do
| you think the retail store is selling it and not making a
| profit?
|
| Oh and guess what? Even when you buy a third party game
| from a retail store, the console maker still got their
| cut. Console makers have forced third party developers to
| pay a license fee for every game sold for over 30 years.
| calsy wrote:
| So you complete changed the argument from retail to
| wholesale. That licensing fee applies to digital and
| physical copies so why is it relevant?
|
| Retail is a physical space, rent applies to properties in
| the real world. Rent does not apply to near infinite
| digital spaces run by a single company.
|
| It was cheaper to purchase in store than on the digital
| store, why is that? Is it because platforms only allow a
| single store to be available on their devices, their own.
| Imagine if there were competing stores? Im sure that
| 'rent' price would disappear really quick.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| _I_ didn't (mis)use the term "rent seeking" the parent
| poster did.
|
| Just like Apple gets a cut of every app sold on iOS, the
| console makers do to. _Even when you buy a physical disc_
|
| The original poster was calling it "rent seeking" when
| Apple got 30% of sales. This is what every distributor
| does - they mark up the price. The "wholesale" price is
| the price the original manufacturer sells it to
| distributors for.
| calsy wrote:
| Again you are comparing the real world with digital. Are
| companies manufacturing software from sourced resources,
| excluding people and labour? Is Apple physically
| distributing software in trucks to stores across the
| country. No, none of this applies to digital content
| hosted on digital stores.
|
| You would think digital content would be cheaper, as it
| is not bound by real world restraints. It can be
| duplicated easily, moved quickly and made available at
| anytime to any person with a connect device.
|
| Apple sets its own mark up of 30%, they can do this
| through anti-competitive practice of limiting sales to
| their store only. If companies where able to host their
| own digital stores and sell their own digital products,
| Apple could not afford to mark up to 30% on sales because
| no one would buy anything at the inflated prices on their
| store.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| > Again you are comparing the real world with digital.
| Are companies manufacturing software from sourced
| resources, excluding people and labour? Is Apple
| physically distributing software in trucks to stores
| across the country. No, none of this applies to digital
| content hosted on digital stores.
|
| So do you think running the app stores don't have a cost?
| Is any company not charging a mark up for being a
| distributor of digital content?
|
| > You would think digital content would be cheaper,
|
| The physical retail markup is much higher.
|
| > Apple sets its own mark up of 30
|
| As does all of its competitors.
|
| > If companies where able to host their own digital
| stores and sell their own digital products, Apple could
| not afford to mark up to 30% on sales because no one
| would buy anything at the inflated prices on their store.
|
| If that's the case, why do companies that can sell
| physical goods on their own choose to sell on Amazon? Why
| don't music companies sell their own digital downloads
| since they can be played on iPhones? Why don't major
| publishers of books sell their books from their website?
| You can download a book from the web directly into the
| Books app and you can sideload on a Kindle?
|
| The answer is simple, Amazon and Apple are where the
| customers are and there is no friction buying from either
| one because your payment details are already on file.
|
| Marco Arment (cofounder of Tumbler and now a well known
| indie developer) said that one overlooked benefit of
| subscriptions through the App Store is that everyone
| keeps their payment information up to date with Apple.
|
| From a consumer standpoint, canceling a subscription
| through the App Store is much easier than for instance
| going to the NYTimes abs trying to cancel it.
| calsy wrote:
| Again, I bought GoW Ragnorok for $30 cheaper than the
| digital store ($99 in store, $129 on PSN). Same for most
| new releases, the PSN store is always overpriced. Same
| with xbox.
|
| Now we are talking sale of physical items on Amazon.
| Amazon is popular, doesn't mean it has no competition. I
| can easily buy things on eBay, or Walmart or any number
| of big chain stores. Amazon isn't the most popular online
| store where I live, eBay is. Kindle has lock in aswell,
| side loading is not convenient. most people wouldn't know
| what it is. There are however many alternative ebook
| stores and many people do sell directly from a personal
| website cheaper.
|
| Many companies do sell their products on their own sites,
| Music can can be bought from alternative websites. Unlike
| the App Store, there is no rule that says these items
| must be sold from a single source.
|
| I do not understand where you're going with all this? Are
| these continually changing arguments meant to justify
| Apple locking out competition that allows them to freely
| set their own pricing? That no one would use alternatives
| anyway? That it's no different from retail?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Your argument was
|
| > companies where able to host their own digital stores
| and sell their own digital products, Apple could not
| afford to mark up to 30% on sales because no one would
| buy anything at the inflated prices on their store
|
| Yet companies that do have a choice between selling
| products using their own distribution channels,
| overwhelmingly decide to sell through aggregators. Why is
| this?
|
| You keep bringing up buying a game locally as opposed to
| buying it threw the PS store. My point is the platform
| provider is _still_ getting a cut.
|
| > alternative websites. Unlike the App Store, there is no
| rule that says these items must be sold from a single
| source.
|
| Your argument was why would merchants sell on the App
| Store if they weren't forced to. My Counterexample is
| that even when that choice is available, merchants still
| chose to sell through aggregators because that's where
| the customers are.
| calsy wrote:
| I would keep going but what a waste of a day. Agree to
| disagree.
| wardedVibe wrote:
| This is what I was talking about with streaming. Disney is
| leveraging their position as a massive studio to force the
| use of their sub-par steaming service. It used to be
| illegal for film studios to own box offices. The modern
| equivalent is streaming. Give them a couple of years and
| they'll be suing Disney.
| [deleted]
| justinclift wrote:
| > tying
|
| I've often wondered if the infamous Google banners about "you
| should _really_ be using Chrome for our websites " should be
| considered a form of this.
|
| Suspecting that them only requesting it, rather than mandating
| it (in the message) might stop it crossing the threshold. Even
| though there (at least used to be) plenty of cases where (say)
| Firefox would outright not work properly with Gmail, so Chrome
| or a derivative had to be used.
| ralusek wrote:
| > utilizing technological incompatibilities to negatively
| impact competition in adjacent markets
|
| iMessage...
| mind-blight wrote:
| It seems like streaming services, especially Disney plus, would
| be a prime target.
|
| I'm still not holding my breath for them to go after the big
| ISPs
| MajimasEyepatch wrote:
| > de facto tying, bundling, exclusive dealing, or loyalty
| rebates that use market power in one market to entrench that
| power or impede competition in the same or a related market
|
| > using market power in one market to gain a competitive
| advantage in an adjacent market by, for example, utilizing
| technological incompatibilities to negatively impact
| competition in adjacent markets
|
| A few obvious targets that come to mind here are Amazon Prime
| and, to a lesser extent, Xbox GamePass.
| amluto wrote:
| Qualcomm comes to mind too.
| sharemywin wrote:
| Anything where your search results return your own products
| and others.
| wardedVibe wrote:
| Netflix must be having a party
| dexwiz wrote:
| I wonder if super-apps with subscription passes like Uber that
| combine food delivery and taxi service could be targeted by
| this rule. Many businesses are forced to expand to multiple
| verticals to satisfy growth numbers, and they can use dominance
| is one vertical to oust players in another.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| I'm no expert but doesn't seem like it to me. Uber took
| successful technology from its taxi business and applied that
| to food delivery. That's just legitimate innovation; they're
| not exploiting power in one place to gain more in another.
|
| I think the apps are separate too? But "bundling" is more
| about forcing customers to buy more than they need, not the
| fact that both services could be operated from the same app.
| kuwoze wrote:
| My take on this: the stock market tanked, us congress and senate
| members already sold all their stocks, and now they told the FTC
| it's safe to go after big tech.
| impalallama wrote:
| Interesting idea but wouldn't stocks and companies being weak
| incite further protectionism rather than the opposite?
| notch656a wrote:
| Not if they're shorting the hell out of them.
| theknocker wrote:
| nerdponx wrote:
| As always, it's interesting to read any dissent to what sounds
| like "obviously a good thing":
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P221202Section5...
|
| There is also an interesting bit of back-and-forth between the
| dissent and one of the supporting statements:
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Section5PolicyS...
|
| I'm still inclined to think it's a good thing. I'm not educated
| enough on this topic to agree or disagree with any of the
| commissioners' opinions, but the FTC is clearly interested in
| sending a signal to the public.
|
| I'm moderately optimistic, although it will be interesting to see
| what happens after the next presidential election. It's possible
| that the commissioners are concerned about it, and are trying to
| make some kind of mark and set precedent before they're all fired
| and replaced if a Republican (Trump?) takes office in 2024.
| jameshart wrote:
| I think one of the interesting signals they are sending is
| that, in an era where increasingly law seems to feel like
| 'whatever you can construct a Supreme Court majority to
| uphold', there are other elements within the constitutional
| checks and balances, and executive agencies enforcing
| legislative intent is one such important component.
| theknocker wrote:
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| fwiw, I believe if you ask anyone who has interacted with any
| of the relevant (to competition) agencies globally, any
| law/rule which gives them more power is obviously bad. The
| humans who work there tend to be clueless about the specifics
| of an industry and imagine all kinds of nefarious intent
| everywhere. They are often intelligent people, but just don't
| understand the industry.
| rz2k wrote:
| For a while I reread William Langwiesche's 2003 article in
| The Atlantic* about Columbia's last flight[1] every year or
| so. I find it very easy to empathize with the insiders who
| actually understand all of the minutiae and imagine the
| frustration of dealing with outsiders who didn't understand
| any of the details or all the decision processes you and your
| team had already been through.
|
| The point was that I didn't want to make the same mistakes,
| and I wanted to remind myself to be wary of "inside scoop"
| types of opinions, or placing too much weight on "reports
| from the frontlines", because I recognized that I was overly
| biased in this direction. Outsiders views, or fresh
| perspectives, as well as insights from a big picture also
| have value.
|
| Every long gone institution or industry that now seems absurd
| with hindsight, also necessarily had some internal logic if
| it ever existed for decades.
|
| [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/colu
| mbi...
| tablespoon wrote:
| > The humans who work there tend to be clueless about the
| specifics of an industry and imagine all kinds of nefarious
| intent everywhere. They are often intelligent people, but
| just don't understand the industry.
|
| Sometimes that's a good thing. "Understand[ing] the industry"
| often means buying into its bullshit and looking at the world
| from its self-interested perspective.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Fair point.
| rodgerd wrote:
| Yes, letting Boeing tell the FAA whether their planes are
| safe has worked so well.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| I'm talking the agencies who get involved in competition
| law. In the US that's the FTC and the DOJ, and others in
| different jurisdictions. It's pretty different from the
| FAA. The FAA is the aviation authority. They are presumably
| stacked with folks who understand a lot about aviation.
| Karunamon wrote:
| I mean this with complete sincerity but perhaps given current
| market, business, and global conditions, perhaps we should
| assume nefarious intent anytime a company breaks a rule in a
| way that causes them to profit? It's not like evil or shady
| behavior is in short supply.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| The question is mostly what should the rules be, and how
| much leeway do you give an administrative agency to decide
| what they are and if they are being broken.
|
| At least in the US, there is a very reasonable argument
| that the administrative agencies have overstepped.
|
| As an example, from the FTC:
|
| "Unfair methods of competition, the policy statement
| explains, are tactics that seek to gain an advantage while
| avoiding competing on the merits, and that tend to reduce
| competition in the market".
|
| Who decides what "the merits" are, and who decides what the
| "market" is? They play a lot of games with these
| definitions. What are the merits in the smartphone
| business? Did apple abuse their position to unfairly take
| over the camera business? Is "cameras" even a market
| anymore? Is a camera so clearly part of a smartphone that
| it does indeed meet the definition of "merits"? Is Amazon
| abusing their position in e-commerce to take out the
| delivery business (fedex etc) by offering "free shipping" ?
| Is AWS abusing their position in IaaS to unfairly compete
| in the "server cpu" market? Is that even a market? Or is it
| not because x86 chips and ARM chips are thought of as
| different? Read the current case brought against Meta. The
| definition of "market" is... really pretty awful. Someone
| is just trying to make their career.
| vkou wrote:
| > At least in the US, there is a very reasonable argument
| that the administrative agencies have overstepped.
|
| Only if you ignore most of the text of the congressional
| acts that have created them. If the FTC's charter
| consisted of that one paragraph, it would be a reasonable
| criticism. It doesn't, and it's not.
|
| It's true that there's a reactionary movement in the
| current SCOTUS that comes up with very odd
| interpretations of these congressional acts (like
| concluding that CO2 is not a pollutant, and thereby can't
| be regulated as one), but just because Amy Coney
| legislates from the bench that the sky is green doesn't
| necessarily make it so.
| divyekapoor wrote:
| This reply is spot on. A vague policy statement means
| that the FTC itself can't be and won't be held to any
| standard. They might define Ecommerce one way when it
| helps with Amazon's prosecution and define it another way
| to help with Facebook and Google's prosecution. I read
| the policy statement - it's so broad that it's
| meaningless. Just lobby the politicians and hope and pray
| they keep the FTC at bay is not the way to run a
| developed country.
| vkou wrote:
| > fwiw, I believe if you ask anyone who has interacted with
| any of the relevant (to competition) agencies globally, any
| law/rule which gives them more power is obviously bad.
|
| And if you've ever interacted with an abusive corporation,
| you'll see that any rule, or lack of rule, which gives them
| more power over you, their customer/employee is obviously
| bad.
|
| I, as a customer/employee/tenant would generally like my bank
| to not run off with my money after betting it all on red, my
| employer to not retaliate against me for reporting abuse, and
| my landlord to not throw me out on my ass because I
| complained about a rat infestation in his building.
|
| Without any rules against unethical behavior, most
| organizations with power over you will happily turn to it,
| and will drive their more ethical competitors out of
| business.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Tis true. It's a conundrum. Do you give power to the
| regulator which will help them stop the bad guys, but also
| enable them to be bad guys at the cost of the good
| companies, or not?
|
| Free market folks argue that the market can figure out
| every one of those things you mention. But most of them
| understand it isn't a free lunch.
| vkou wrote:
| It is a conundrum, and it is one of the hardest political
| problems for humans to solve. It's half the reason we
| _have_ politics.
|
| I generally think that a case-by-case approach, with
| clear avenues for both rulemaking and redress, with
| democratic (direct or representative) control is a good
| starting point for solving this conundrum.
|
| I allude to the problem of finding market solutions for
| ethics problems in the last part of my previous point.
| Markets do not optimize for ethical behaviour. Largely
| because of information assymetries, largely because
| people are not perfectly rational agents, largely because
| of the power imbalance that exists in many of them, and
| also largely because people are poor at measuring
| specific examples of long-tail risk.
|
| Good rules also reduce market friction, because they let
| me make reasonable assumptions, like 'This product is
| probably not going to kill me when used as instructed,
| because it adheres to X, Y, Z objective standards',
| instead of having to go down an endless rabbit hole of
| 'Buyer beware, do your own research!'
| nerdponx wrote:
| I would go a step further and argue that markets optimize
| for institutions that will seek to consolidate monopoly
| power and destroy the freedom of the market in which they
| formed. They specifically optimize for _unethical_
| behavior, as a natural consequence of the incentive
| systems in place. I argue that this is true even if there
| is not a large bureaucratic government to take advantage
| of for regulatory capture.
|
| Basically, classical economics is predicated on a knife-
| edge equilibrium that ironically needs government
| intervention in order to prevent people from deviating.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| >> Markets do not optimize for ethical behaviour
|
| This is speculation and pedantry, but: What if they do?
| What if they already weed out 90% of it, and the
| remaining stuff that you notice is the optimal amount
| given the cost to weed it out (no matter how said weeding
| is done).
| vkou wrote:
| Pedantic counter-example and Exhibit A: The endless
| litany of unraveled crypto scams that keep getting bigger
| and better, year over year. There's one that's going bust
| right now.
|
| It's the poster child for a perfect market environment,
| where everyone involved is simply trying to optimize
| their returns, and there are next to no rules. It's also
| full of hucksters, thieves, conmen, liars, and flat-out
| frauds, to the utter detriment of any legitimate commerce
| in the space.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| You don't think the market could sort this out through
| time? Free market believers don't think the market will
| sort out every problem overnight - it is pretty much the
| belief that the bad players get shaken out over time.
|
| The harder ones seem to be healthcare (massive info
| asymmetry) and anything related to pollution
| (externalities). The market has had time on those and not
| done so well.
| danaris wrote:
| _Even if_ they did, it would be _idealized free markets_
| that did that.
|
| Not the very much non-ideal, largely non-free markets we
| have, rife as they are with information asymmetry, non-
| commodity products, buyers with urgent time needs, and a
| host of other aspects that utterly invalidate the Free
| Market Will Solve Everything gospel that so many try to
| preach.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| The argument isn't that the free market will solve
| everything. It's that there isn't a _better_ solution. It
| 's a lower bar.
| danaris wrote:
| Well, that's trivially falsifiable.
|
| A competently regulated market is better than a "free"
| (ie, unregulated) market in nearly all situations.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "It's possible that the commissioners are concerned about it,
| and are trying to make some kind of mark and set precedent
| before they are all fired and replaced if a Republican (Trump?)
| takes office in 2024."
|
| It is also possible that this is an incorrect interpretation
| despite its position as the top HN comment. Note I am not
| saying it is incorrect, I am saying it is possible it is
| incorrect. Anything is possible, right. Well, almost.
|
| FTC Commissioners are appointed for terms of seven years,^1 and
| no more than three can be from the the same political party.
| The Senate must confirm nominations. The President chooses the
| Chairperson. See 15 USC 41.
|
| Commissioners frequently resign before their terms expire, but
| I am not aware of any instances where a Commissioner, or all
| five of them, as suggested by the parent comment, have been
| been "fired" for political reasons. Perhaps an astute HN
| commenter can cite one.
|
| 1. The exception is if they are filling a vacancy left by
| someone who leaves before their term expires.
| nerdponx wrote:
| There's an aphorism about how the best way to get the right
| answer to a question is to post the wrong answer.
| waltbosz wrote:
| It's called Parkinson's Law.
| nanidin wrote:
| Or nerd sniping, for the layman.
| CPLX wrote:
| Clever
| waltbosz wrote:
| You win.
| salawat wrote:
| Cunningham's Law.
|
| Q.E.D.
| pm90 wrote:
| > Commissioners frequently resign before their terms expire,
| but I am not aware of any instances where a Commissioner, or
| all five of them, as suggested by the parent comment, have
| been been "fired" for political reasons. Perhaps an astute HN
| commenter can cite one.
|
| Precedent didn't seem to restrain 45.
|
| 45 remains the favored candidate to run as the GOP nominee in
| 2024 Presidential election.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "45" appointed two Democratic Commissioners and one
| Republican when he was in office. One is still serving and
| voted in favour of withdrawing the 2015 Statement on
| Section 5. The 2015 Statement came under Obama's watch, not
| 45's.
|
| "Tech" proponents try to politicise any regulation that
| threatens their privacy-disrepecting, anticompetitive and
| deceptive "business" practices but that strategy is doomed
| to fail. At this point politicians on both sides are
| annoyed by the "tech" company nonsense, perhaps for
| different reasons.
| int_19h wrote:
| One of the complaints:
|
| "... the Policy Statement repudiates the consumer welfare
| standard"
|
| This is a reference to the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox, and in my
| mind, doing away with that is an indication that FTC is doing
| the right (and long overdue) thing.
| randombits0 wrote:
| But otherwise responded with no guidance as to what is and is
| not offending conduct. That doesn't sound like the right
| thing to me.
| [deleted]
| themagician wrote:
| If they were really interested in sending a signal they would
| do something like shut down Amway. A company that is nothing
| more than a multi-billion dollar "legal" pyramid scheme which
| preys on the most vulnerable people in society operates with
| impunity and has for decades now. Literally brainwashes and
| robs MILLIONS of people on a daily basis.
|
| The FTC, FCC, and SEC are toothless against billionaires. Just
| like the IRS, they mainly focus on harassing small-time crooks
| these days because that's the easiest thing to do. The large
| scale fraudsters operate with absolute impunity. If anything
| these organizations actually act as a barrier to entry for
| people looking to get into fraud, because if you don't get big
| enough fast enough they will come after you. But once you hit a
| billion in revenue, you are golden.
| neonnoodle wrote:
| The DeVos family's deep ties to the GOP mean this will
| probably never happen.
| notacoward wrote:
| > they would do something like shut down Amway
|
| While I agree that Amway and other pyramid schemes (including
| most crypto) should be shut down, it's not because they're
| anti-competitive. They're _fraudulent_ , which is arguably
| worse but certainly different.
| sharemywin wrote:
| It's not really fraudulent. Most of the companies com plans
| are right there.
|
| I don's see it as any more fraudulent then tech companies
| offering products for free or significantly discounted
| using investor cash to buy massive market share then once
| they have a monopoly jacking up prices or loading up search
| results with ads to the point you need to scroll down to
| even see search results.
|
| Imagine if when google was first released it was nothing
| but ads and/or websites with more ads from its ad network
| themagician wrote:
| It is fraudulent. Fraud, racketeering, price-fixing,
| false income claims and operation as an illegal pyramid
| scheme. Sued many times in many countries. Banned from
| the UK and most of the EU. Several founders were indicted
| in Canada on criminal charges.
|
| But somehow it's just not enough for the FTC to really do
| anything other than settle and let them continue operate.
| sharemywin wrote:
| like lotteries and gambling.
| Retric wrote:
| Multi level marketing is closely related but distinct from a
| pyramid scheme. The critical difference is the actual
| generation of profits and the health of the organization
| through time.
|
| Franchise agreements can similarly look really sketchy on the
| surface especially with a large buy-in, but it's hard to
| argue a Mcdonald's franchise agreement is a scam due to the
| real profits and costs involved. Which isn't to say every
| franchise agreement is a good investment.
|
| Where things break down for MLM is really the specific
| business model and percentages involved. If say 4% of a sales
| guy's check gets sent to the chain of people who recruited
| him then no big deal. However, large percentages or large buy
| can quickly become very problematic.
| akiselev wrote:
| There are plenty of bad franchises (remember Quiznos
| anyone?) but McDonalds is probably the best counterexample.
| Opening a new franchise is almost impossible these days and
| McDonalds does a lot more due diligence on someone
| _acquiring_ an existing franchise (with right of refusal)
| than anyone ever did on SBF or FTX.
|
| Even the scammy MLMs these days come with buyback clauses
| due to FTC agreements so the MLM meme of someone getting
| stuck with a garage full of product they can't sell is
| largely a leftover from the 90s.
| mjevans wrote:
| Franchise agreements should have a very narrow path to the
| top of the chain. Maybe a state / locality, country, and
| global entity at most and that entirely for tax zoning /
| similar reasons.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Non-MLM franchises don't make their money from sublicensing
| at all. It isn't like one McDonald's franchise is being
| paid by other McDonald's stores. It's single-level
| marketing. So I don't know that the distinction is so
| fuzzy.
| bombcar wrote:
| Some franchises are basically scams against the
| franchisee- subway and Quiznos were famous for not caring
| much at all and being willing to sell a franchise to
| anyone with some money (normally franchises are protected
| from similar franchises within a given area).
| specialist wrote:
| This is also SOP for the value-added reseller (VAR) scam.
|
| One notable exception are car dealers. They somehow
| secured themselves durable lucrative carve-outs before
| the VAR thing matured.
| Retric wrote:
| I was bringing up one of the more sketchy parts of many
| MLM companies, the out of pocket cost before someone can
| actually make money selling product.
|
| The point was buy in can absolutely be used as part of a
| scam see many 90's MLM "companies", but it may also be
| part of a perfectly reasonable business model.
| gruez wrote:
| [deleted]
| themagician wrote:
| Amway. Amway and all the clones.
|
| In the US you can run a pyramid scheme as long as you have
| enough money and political influence to do it "legally".
| parineum wrote:
| That's not true. A pyramid scheme, legally, has no
| product but itself. Those are illegal.
|
| For example, pay me $20 to join my company and you get
| the right to recruit people for $20!
|
| Amway is essentially exactly the same except they add a
| product to the mix to get around the law. They still
| primarily profit from the "employees" rather than
| customers.
|
| Changing the definition of a pyramid scheme, for the
| proposes of law enforcement, to something more akin to
| "profits primarily off employees" is what needs to be
| done.
| specialist wrote:
| If you have model legislation handy, particularly the
| specific legal definition of scams like MLM, I'd be very
| grateful. Otherwise I'll poke around a bit, to see how UK
| phrased it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > A pyramid scheme, legally, has no product but itself.
|
| There are 0.0% of pyramid schemes with no product.
| parineum wrote:
| Because they are illegal. That's what the originals were
| though.
|
| You pay some amount of money that gets you basically
| nothing (maybe a few pages of "how to recruit") and
| that's it.
|
| MLM schemes are distinct in that they actually have a
| product and that's what makes them legal.
| ok_dad wrote:
| > Amway
|
| Literally the last word of the sentence before the sentence
| you quoted stated the very specific company name.
| sequoia wrote:
| What does "literally brainwashes" mean? I don't think
| "brainwashing" is actually a well defined concept. Can you
| link to an explanation that would clearly exclude persuasion?
| xapata wrote:
| "Literally" means figuratively, now. In much popular usage,
| at least. "Figurative brain washing," is quite clear.
| waltbosz wrote:
| I taught my children the correct usage of the word
| "literally", after we watched an irksome YouTube video in
| which the host made significant abuse of the word.
|
| Now whenever they hear someone say "literally", they
| double check with me: "Daddy, is (xyz) a figure of
| speech?"
|
| I find the behavior both cute and precocious.
| antiterra wrote:
| The battle has been lost and 'literally' lies with its
| siblings 'very,' 'really,' and 'truly.' I suspect
| 'actually' is in danger.
| teddyh wrote:
| Verily.
| croon wrote:
| It's literally (figuratively) meant figuratively for
| literally (literally) hundreds of years, depending on
| context. I was always a language stickler growing up but
| am becoming more measured in most areas of life as I age
| and discover the subtle nuances of literally
| (figuratively) everything, and as long as I'm
| understanding someone figuratively (figuratively), I
| won't question their language.
| geoelectric wrote:
| So, I know a little about this, unfortunately. My "shameful
| past job" at one point in the 90s was working for a company
| that basically made small-business CRM+accounting software
| you could customize to drive any MLM scheme you could think
| up.
|
| Amway's not the best example, since they actually sell real
| goods and because Amway's sellers' best customers have almost
| always been the sellers themselves. In other words, many
| sellers used it as a way to buy goods at "wholesale" and
| never really had any intention of reselling them. At one
| point, I think that was even part of the Amway pitch,
| particularly at the time they were inexplicably popular for
| their (expensive and therefore in theory a better deal
| discounted) water treatment products.
|
| I don't think there's a price advantage there compared to
| Costco or online, though--much of what made Amway fade into
| the background starting in the mid 90s.
|
| So too Stella Dot, Mary Kay, Cutco/Vector, probably Herbalife
| and even Transamerica, etc. They sell real stuff, whether or
| not the pricing makes sense, and you can technically turn a
| profit on it, whether or not the market is really there, so
| they're not technically considered a pyramid scheme in the
| scam/illegal sense.
|
| Now, I'm not saying they're good ideas--at all--and they
| absolutely operate on hype and pipe dream every bit as much
| as those awful timeshare presentations. They have the same
| exponential market saturation issue as any pyramid scheme and
| the same diminishing returns--but they are generally not
| considered fraudulent, just obnoxious.
|
| The really awful pyramid schemes mostly just sell "new seller
| kits" to prospective targets that teach them how to sell "new
| seller kits" to their targets, have no real product or way to
| make a profit, and the entire rollup is those kits and other
| overhead fees. They're the financial equivalent of a chain
| letter.
|
| I'm pretty sure those do get action taken against them if
| they're identified. The biggest problem there is most are
| pretty small, take a bunch of people's money, then burn out
| once it's all rolled to the top ranks who founded the scheme
| and new marks aren't easy to find.
| girvo wrote:
| While I understand your point, I think society should treat
| all of this as a distinction without a difference.
| Herbalife et al. should not be allowed to prey on the
| vulnerable, regardless of if they happen to sell a "real"
| product or not. It's not a real business selling a real
| product.
|
| Other countries rightfully have seen it this way for some
| for the companies under discussion.
| tomcam wrote:
| My heart agrees with you. My brain demands a way to
| define vulnerable in a legally and Constitutionally
| acceptable way.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I guess a starting step would be people with psychiatric
| ailments or learning disabilities. I knew a couple that
| had both between them and spent all their time trying
| desperately to survive while falling for every scheme out
| there. This was America in the early 90s and they were in
| their late 40s so surely dead by now, because nobody
| survives to an old age in the U.S with that kind of
| weakness.
| sokoloff wrote:
| At what point should the government step in and take away
| the right of a citizen to enter into contracts?
|
| I had an aunt for whom this would have been (and was) the
| case, but she was 1 in 50K level of mentally incapable.
| nerdponx wrote:
| What about taking away the ability of a corporation to
| _offer_ them contracts? I hesitate to call that a
| "right".
| sokoloff wrote:
| When you take away one side's ability to enter into
| certain contracts, you take away the other side's as
| well.
| geoelectric wrote:
| I'd be fine with a new definition that made them illegal,
| or at least put such heavy truth-in-advertising laws on
| them that nobody in their right mind would bite given the
| real numbers you can expect. They're absolutely
| exploitative.
|
| I probably made the mistake of speaking a little too
| specifically for the US situation, though. Here, the
| criteria are (modulo nuance) roughly what I said for the
| FTC to care.
| bombcar wrote:
| I thought some government office made them disclose how
| many people made how much, but it doesn't really do much
| to shut down the scams.
|
| At some point you have to give up.
| themagician wrote:
| It's a great example. Sued many times in many regions.
| Unable to operate in some countries where they aren't able
| to pay off politicians and government bodies. Founders have
| faced criminal charges in several countries and had assets
| seized. Fraud, price-fixing, false claims, tax evasion,
| racketeering, and the list goes on.
|
| It's a great example because there is just so much about
| it. It's not some obscure company that has never been sued
| or never been found guilty. It's a company run by people
| who commit fraud and get away with it because they are just
| so wealthy.
|
| It is a criminal organization. They have even pled guilty
| to criminal charges in the past. But somehow they just get
| to pay a fine and keep on going.
|
| The whole point of my comment wasn't to focus on Amway but
| just to point out how ineffective the FTC is. Even when the
| activity is criminal and/or flagrant they are powerless to
| actually do anything to stop it. At best you get some
| modified legal jargon.
| geoelectric wrote:
| Idealistically, I don't disagree. I just meant they're
| not a great example of something I'd expect the FTC to
| knock down with a new stance here.
|
| They don't break (current) US laws in terms of being a
| pyramid--not going to get into their history of fraud,
| racketeering, etc, which isn't an FTC concern.
|
| Anyway, I know you're basically making a "this cause is
| more important than that cause " argument, but of course
| a stricter stance specifically re: being anti-competitive
| wouldn't touch them at all. They don't lead a market in
| anything anymore.
|
| What I realistically would expect this to bring down, if
| anything, is the walled gardens, where they exist on
| devices that have become so central to our lives that
| this amounts to broadly restricting what goods or
| services you're able to consume. The wording of what they
| released seems very specifically crafted to highlight
| walled gardens and similar concepts, at least where
| there's arbitrary action in the name of rent taking
| happening as well.
|
| I suspect this--along with the anti-competitive payment
| system decision from the Epic case--is the shot across
| the bow for Apple and Google to either loosen up on iOS
| and Android (and very specifically, App Store and Play
| Store) or be targeted.
|
| That'd be good enough for me, for now. I don't like MLMs
| either, and this may be a first world problem, but it's a
| daily one I face.
| specialist wrote:
| I too don't see how an anticompetitive rules can be used
| to thwart MLMs (like Amway).
|
| But IANAL, so I'd need an ELI5.
|
| Either way, I support overreaching rulesets against gig
| economy biz models with onerous penalties. eg Repeated
| radical cashectomies.
|
| Scams like Uber, where Labor has to supply their own
| Capital to participate, receive no benefits, have no
| collective bargaining, get shunted into arbitration, and
| are excluded from profit sharing.
|
| That's just wrong.
| themagician wrote:
| They don't break the laws because they pay off
| politicians to write them in their favor. A few years ago
| they tried to make it explicit and get it written into
| law that they would be exempt from investigation over the
| whole "pyramid thing" permanently. They failed then, but
| give it another few years and they will succeed.
|
| The whole walled garden thing is mostly trivial nonsense.
| At worst Apple and Google will pay a small fine and a few
| thousand people will be able to more easily sideload some
| stuff. Maybe. Probably not though. If it gets to this
| these companies will simply modify the law so that it
| doesn't apply to them.
|
| Unfair competition is an American virtue these days. Fair
| competition is seen as "being weak".
|
| Even this policy statement wasn't approved 4-0. It was
| 3-1. You've got government bodies that are so politically
| divided that you literally can't even get FOUR people--
| WHO RUN THE FTC--to agree that on a simply policy
| statement that basically says, "Unfair Methods of
| Competition bad." The dissenting commissioner wrote a 20
| page book why she doesn't support this.
|
| And you know what? I mostly agree with the dissenting
| commissioner. Not wholly because of her views, but
| because in practice this will be used to harass small(er)
| business. It will have no material impact on Google,
| Facebook, Amazon, or Apple.
| geoelectric wrote:
| Your last point is a really good one. We saw that kind of
| captive behavior with the FCC too, particularly during
| the last administration with that one yahoo that was
| running it for awhile.
| basch wrote:
| >They sell real stuff
|
| Whether or not they sell real stuff is a distraction from
| the real question. To figure out if it is a scam, you need
| to look at 1) where profits come from (is it from "selling"
| the product, or is it from recruiting sellers and "selling
| startup kits".) If most of their money is from people
| buying "be your own boss and own a business kits" then that
| is the product. 2) The next question is if that product
| they are selling (the kit) is a scam or misrepresented pipe
| dream.
|
| Even if they sell a product, you need to ask if the product
| is the product. If all the money is from a pyramid of
| recruiting people to recruit people to buy startup kits,
| there should be some kind of action taken against them. The
| distinction becomes more obvious when you look at something
| like Cutco/Vector, where there is a product company and a
| marketing kit company.
|
| In essence you can have two identical companies with two
| identical business models, and one can be a scam and one
| can not be a scam based on execution. If the business
| derives profit primary from sales to end customers, then
| everything is above water. If millions of "own your own
| businesses" end up with garages full of unsellable product,
| its a scam.
|
| I recognize this interpretation takes away the agency and
| culpability from the person who joins a scheme, buys a
| bunch of stuff in hopefulness, and fails to execute as a
| salesperson. I also recognize that markets can dry up, and
| what was once above water can start to look like a scam.
| But these companies prey on those types of people. And if
| preying on vulnerable people is your business, its a scam.
| viraptor wrote:
| > I don't think there's a price advantage there compared to
| Costco or online
|
| Yeah, my parents bought some amway stuff regularly, because
| in the 90s outside of the US it was actually a good deal on
| cleaning products. The closest wholesale mall equivalent
| for us was ~3h drive away.
| oconnor663 wrote:
| > obviously a good thing
|
| I mean, a law against being a jerk would be great too, but the
| problem is that everyone thinks the other guy is the jerk. And
| when we actually try to write rules down for this stuff it gets
| problematic quickly.
| megaman821 wrote:
| It sounds good as long as the White House doesn't try to use
| the FTC as a political weapon to disadvantage their opponents.
| Like going after Amazon for their union stance or Facebook for
| their censorship stance.
| xmonkee wrote:
| >Like going after Amazon for their union stance
|
| why the fuck not? It helps the american people vs helping a
| company
| megaman821 wrote:
| Because that is what the National Labor Relations Board is
| for.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Because it has no jurisdiction to do so, and there is no
| law being broken. You want to give a federal agency the
| power to discretionarily decide what vaguely "helps" the
| American people? And what about when a political party you
| don't favor gets into the presidency and appoints his own
| chairman to interpret that vague mandate?
| umanwizard wrote:
| Amazon is good for some consumers (people who value
| convenient shopping and fast shipping) and bad for others
| (people who really like independent shops). It's also good
| for some employees (people who couldn't have found a better
| job elsewhere) and bad for others (people who could have
| found a better job at a business that got outcompeted by
| Amazon).
|
| Whether it's a net positive or negative force is basically
| too complex a question to answer without resorting to an
| overarching unfalsifiable ideology like neoliberalism or
| socialism.
|
| However, rule of law, predictability, and stability are
| unambiguously good for everyone. Attacking businesses or
| people on pretexts unrelated to the underlying reason a
| politician wants to hurt them is a hallmark of corrupt
| countries.
|
| If we decide as a society to legislate stronger union
| protections then sure, enforce them against Amazon (and
| everyone else), but it seems bad for that to motivate
| selectively enforcing unrelated antitrust laws.
| chrischen wrote:
| Independent shops can still exist... just not the useless
| ones. Amazon is known for more generic commodity items,
| but if you want premium brands you often still have to go
| direct to manufacturer. In fact the "independent" shop
| niche is probably why Shopify even has a market.
| p1necone wrote:
| > good for some consumers (people who value convenient
| shopping and fast shipping) and bad for others (people
| who really like independent shops).
|
| It's bad for them too once the monopoly is strong enough
| that Amazon can stop caring about those things.
|
| Preventing monopolies isn't done because it satisifies
| some abstract sense of justice, it's done because they
| genuinely hurt consumers in the long term, even if the
| monopoly became a monopoly because they were really good
| for consumers to begin with.
| umanwizard wrote:
| I never argued against going after monopolies.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Everything you describe is fair game for the FTC to
| consider.
|
| Amazon's stance on or relationship to unions is not a
| reason for the FTC to adjust its stance.
| astrange wrote:
| Amazon is a two-sided market. I don't think "monopoly" is
| a good description of a company that's also a monopsony.
|
| There's more of an argument that it's a monopoly
| employer, but they've been raising wages.
| amelius wrote:
| The problem is that this two sided market is being
| regulated by a company.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Amazon is good for some consumers (people who value
| convenient shopping and fast shipping)
|
| Amazon is awful for people who value fast shipping. They
| used to let you specify your shipping speed! Now the only
| option they offer is "it'll get there when it gets
| there". They also feel free to deliver things well after
| they claimed they would, once they're willing to give you
| a delivery date at all.
|
| I actually canceled my Prime subscription this year
| specifically because Amazon's approach to shipping is so
| abusive.
| z3c0 wrote:
| It seems very tonedeaf to describe the welfare of Amazon
| employees in terms of the health of the job market. Have
| you considered the employees who can't find a better job
| elsewhere, but also feel insufficiently compensated for
| their time? I believe it likely that you'll find more in
| that group than either of the two that you described.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > Have you considered the employees who can't find a
| better job elsewhere, but also feel insufficiently
| compensated for their time?
|
| How would the FTC going after Amazon help these people?
| z3c0 wrote:
| Those are the people most in need of unions.
| umanwizard wrote:
| I never argued against the idea that Amazon should be
| forced to stop union-busting. I think you need to re-read
| my original comment.
| nverno wrote:
| Why go after Amazon specifically, with a profit margin
| ~2%, instead of other companies like Apple, for example,
| with a profit margin of ~30%? It seems like the latter
| would have much more room to raise employee salaries.
| z3c0 wrote:
| I think that's a very easy question to answer, but I'm
| going to do so with another question: who do you think
| employs more stateside? Apple's profit margins obviously
| come from their use of overseas manufacturing - certainly
| an ethical problem too, but not the same problem. I'm
| concerned with the people building their phones as well,
| but Amazon employees are in my immediate vicinity.
|
| I really can't think of a more apples-to-oranges
| comparison (pun not intended). The only thing Apple and
| Amazon have in common is that they're the A's in FAANG.
| uni_rule wrote:
| Presumably because Amazon is such a notorious neat
| grinder in how it treats its "boots on the ground". They
| don't exactly have the goodwill necessary to shake it off
| since mkst people's relationship with them is out of
| convenience rather than fanaticism. Also unlike some
| brands with the ability to conveniently ignore where or
| how their unsafe/underpaid sausage is made (in China)
| they also get shit for squeezing the hell out of their
| workers domestically where they can still complain about
| the mistreatment publicly.
| Tyrek wrote:
| > insufficiently compensated for their time
|
| You've just described the job market. If this employee
| cannot find better paying employment (assuming that the
| job market is operating efficiently) then it is either a
| skill issue (This hypothetical employee is not
| sufficiently skilled to demand a higher salary) or a
| demand issue (There is insufficient demand for your
| skills in the market).
|
| We can have a fruitful discussion around job market
| efficiency (e.g. is Amazon a monopsony employer in some
| local markets), but objecting to the tone of the comment
| feels very out of place when this _is_ the language that
| we use to describe the economy.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Or Tesla for their union stance, which famously halpened more
| than knce over the last two years?
| uoaei wrote:
| Amazon and Meta are both obviously engaging in "unfair
| methods of competition". To blame moves from the FTC on
| anything else seems like a pointless, truth-agnostic move.
| pitaj wrote:
| > Amazon and Meta are both obviously engaging in "unfair
| methods of competition"
|
| I don't think that's obvious at all. Give specifics.
| wyldfire wrote:
| From my casual understanding, Amazon is executing the
| same vertical integration strategy used by Standard Oil
| which resulted in its breakup.
| dnissley wrote:
| Standard Oil was vertically integrating around oil --
| what is Amazon vertically integrating?
| acdha wrote:
| The entire sales process from searching & reviews to
| delivery. There are allegations that Amazon uses their
| data to identify the most profitable areas to set up
| their own competing brands and may even force sellers to
| disclose information which is helpful in this regard. If
| true, it seems pretty clear that a sensible antitrust
| rule would be to split those functions into separate
| businesses with strict rules about what non-public data
| they're allowed to exchange so the Amazon Basics guys
| don't have any information about what's selling where
| which you couldn't get.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Selling things. Almost all the things.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Selling things is selling things. That isn't vertically
| integrating. A good example would be selling and shipping
| now that Amazon is getting into delivery as well.
| zaroth wrote:
| Amazon ships more packages through its DSPs than anyone.
| But I don't see them doing delivery as anti-competitive.
| It is highly integrated and streamlined however.
|
| They put a absolutely massive amount of resources on
| solving delivery. And they probably do it better than
| anyone. You couldn't split that out without totally
| breaking it.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| Basics; AWS; Prime Video; Advertising.
|
| You don't get to deny vertical integration just due to
| them being involved in everything.
| sokoloff wrote:
| My local pizza place is vertically integrating marketing
| pizza, making pizza dough, making pizza, selling pizza,
| and delivering pizza.
|
| It's not the vertical integration that matters but the
| amount of market power a company has. My pizza place:
| almost none. Amazon: significantly more than none.
| megaman821 wrote:
| The FTC is free to investigate whoever they want, but if it
| only ends up being companies the White House opposes then
| that doesn't seem to be furthering the goal of increasing
| competition. There is the obvious bad behavior of cable
| companies in uncompetitive markets or the recent
| consolidation of movie studios or even car dealerships. I
| will reserve judgment until the FTC announces their
| targets.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| grumple wrote:
| Both the previous administration and the current one have
| expressed issues with those companies, and they couldn't
| be more opposed to one another.
|
| Most of these big companies are anticompetitive at the
| very least. Every acquisition over the past decade has
| been a move towards oligopoly. Add to that widespread
| union-busting behavior, manipulation of the American
| people by spreading political or foreign psyops, exerting
| control over self-contained markets, etc... there's a lot
| of behavior that's been allowed over the past few decades
| that should have been reigned in.
| dnissley wrote:
| Sounds like what you're describing is that certain
| companies have become scapegoats. Amazon, Apple, Google,
| Meta, Tesla, and Microsoft all add a lot of value to
| people's lives both through the products they sell as
| well as the tax revenue they provide for the greater
| benefit of all. They aren't the primary drivers of any of
| our society's largest problems. We could quibble about
| exactly what those are, but they'd probably include: the
| high cost of health care, the high cost of housing,
| climate change, immigration, pollution, crime, etc. And
| yet these companies occupy the headlines constantly, and
| evidently the mindshare of our legislators _instead of
| those issues!_
| grumple wrote:
| > Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Tesla, and Microsoft all
| add a lot of value to people's lives both through the
| products they sell as well as the tax revenue they
| provide for the greater benefit of all.
|
| That's a very bold claim, and one that I think is
| generally untrue and possibly extremely so. That might be
| true for a wealthy software engineer, but I don't think
| it's true for most people. For example, anyone who
| doesn't own a Tesla has benefited exactly 0 from the
| company's existence. If you don't order from Amazon or
| aren't doing lots of Google searches... same. And in
| fact, some of these companies - like Amazon, Meta - take
| far more than they give back. Amazon has killed local
| stores nationwide, on demand delivery and packaging is
| awful for the environment, etc. Meta just consumes
| attention and spreads misinformation.
|
| > They aren't the primary drivers of any of our society's
| largest problems.
|
| Except in some cases they quite obviously are. Amazon is
| the case study for abusive workplaces. It's the poster
| child for foreign-produced, cheap knockoffs. Meta is
| credited for spreading misinformation that has resulted
| in the near-destruction of our democracy. Apple,
| Microsoft, and many others have been implicated for using
| slave labor in their supply chains. How many products
| sold on Amazon are products of such labor?
|
| --
|
| I think it's important that we examine these issues
| critically. These are not benevolent super-corporations.
| Sometimes they do good, sometimes they do evil, and
| either way it's generally on a huge scale due to the
| scale of the companies.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| It's much more complicated than that. For one, you're
| conflating targeting industries vs targeting individual
| corporations.
|
| One of the core jobs of the president is deciding which
| lawbreakers to go after. This is needed because (among
| other reasons) the government is far too small to enforce
| every law. In general the President is supposed to set
| general parameters but not pick specific individuals or
| companies. Deciding a specific sector's violations are
| more pressing is squarely within the traditional
| discretion of the executive branch.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Social Media and Online Retail are big nothings compared
| to Finance and Health Care. Finance shenanigans cause
| global recessions and health care is consuming 20% of GDP
| and growing. Since politicians and journalists love
| Twitter though, we get to hear more about that instead.
| acdha wrote:
| On the other hand, healthcare companies aren't an
| integral part of a cycle which leads to armed mobs.
|
| The other thing to remember is that healthcare costs,
| while significant, are both familiar and legal, and the
| government uses the regulatory powers which Congress has
| granted it. Finance similarly has existing agencies and
| laws and while there are periods of lax regulation which
| end badly most people would say that the problem is
| regulators choosing not to use their powers or Congress
| underfunding staffing rather than an unclear question of
| how to handle a particular problem. In contrast,
| something like what should be acceptable on social media
| doesn't have public consensus and runs into thorny
| constitutional issues. It's understandable that this gets
| more attention, especially a time when one of the major
| political parties is making unfounded allegations in an
| attempt to keep their voters active.
| juve1996 wrote:
| So basically you're saying "if he goes after my guys I'm
| against it even if there is evidence of wrongdoing?"
|
| If not, then why not look at the merits of the case?
| megaman821 wrote:
| If police only gave speeding tickets to those with Trump
| bumper stickers, would that not be a misapplication of
| the law? I think most people would think that is wrong
| even if they all happened to be speeding.
| juve1996 wrote:
| Sure, if there's a trend of abuse, there are remedies,
| lawsuits, elections, impeachment, etc.
|
| That trend doesn't exist now, and you can't use it as a
| shield against the law and commit crimes as you please.
| pessimizer wrote:
| What you're saying makes it seem like you think that any
| big tech monopoly is a Trump bumper sticker, and that any
| enforcement against them is unfair.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| > If police only gave speeding tickets to those with
| Trump bumper stickers, would that not be a misapplication
| of the law?
|
| Surely that depends where you live. Seattle (where I
| live)? Yeah, that would be obvious discrimination. A few
| counties further inland? Probably not statistically
| significant.
|
| I'm not sure how or if that reasoning applies to FTC
| purview, but my intuition is that corporations of the
| size that might warrant interest aren't likely to be
| partisan targets in any stable or persistent way.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| The difference here is that these "Trump bumper sticker"
| cars are going 100+ over the speed limit -- why the fuck
| would you waste your time arresting 10 people going 5mph
| over instead?
| concordDance wrote:
| The cable companies are much much worse than Amazon.
| sharemywin wrote:
| don't forget news and oil and food.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| >as the White House doesn't try to use the FTC as a political
| weapon to disadvantage their opponents. Like going after
| Amazon for their union stance or Facebook for their
| censorship stance.
|
| Hm, lets think for a second and wonder why someone might
| consider Amazon or Facebook an "opponent" of the government.
| What's the argument here? That corporations should be immune
| from the government enforcing a level playing field?
| favorited wrote:
| The FTC is an independent federal agency, and the President
| doesn't have the same amount of control over it that he has
| over federal executive departments.
|
| For example, the President could fire the Secretary of Labor
| at any time, for any purpose, because executive department
| heads serve "at the pleasure of the President." The same is
| not true for FTC commissioners, who are statutorily protected
| from firing except for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or
| malfeasance in office." SCOTUS held in Humphrey's Executor v.
| United States (1935) that an FTC commissioner could not be
| removed by the President for policy reasons, because it was
| explicitly granted non-executive powers by Congress.
|
| His power to issue Executive Orders to independent agencies
| is unclear, and often Presidents will "recommend" they do
| things, rather than "direct" them, as he would an executive
| department.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> It sounds good as long as the White House doesn't try to
| use the FTC as a political weapon to disadvantage their
| opponents. Like going after Amazon for their union stance
| or Facebook for their censorship stance.
|
| > The FTC is an independent federal agency, and the
| President doesn't have the same amount of control over it
| that he has over federal executive departments.
|
| Isn't that the same as the FCC? We all know what happened
| with it and Net Neutrality during the Trump administration.
|
| If it's staffed/led by the right people, it could act as a
| _semi-autonomous_ political weapon.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| You think Trump lead the repeal of Net Neutrality?
| dmix wrote:
| Fortunately most of the worst examples the anti-net
| neutrality crowd used never made sense from both a
| business model and technology perspective.
|
| Trying to turn the internet into tiered internet packages
| like early 2000s cable companies offered would be a
| disaster even without neutrality laws. There's probably a
| reason the only real-life example in history that
| Wikipedia lists was some bottom-of-the-barrel Portuguese
| mobile network that experimented with a discount plan
| that never took off.
|
| The lobbyists either bought into the bullshit benefits
| like everyone else or more likely were just taking the
| default anti-gov interference position.
|
| The internet is so far from ever being the extremely
| limited centralized platforms that cable offerings were
| that the analogies never made sense if you spent any
| amount of time considering them.
| deviantbit wrote:
| Don't kid yourself, this is being weaponized. Anytime the
| government does anything, it is not to help you or me.
|
| It will be used in ways not intended. The Sherman Act has
| been used by many politicians to go after their political
| advisories.
|
| If the FTC wants to do this, then they need to go after
| the banks for their anticompetitive practices. How about
| Apple?
|
| In the 90s, Janet Reno went after Bill Gates. It wasn't
| because of the browser in Windows. It was a result of
| Microsoft's reach into Congress, helping turn Congress
| over to the Republicans. Microsoft's execs didn't want
| the tax increases that were coming, so they went all in
| for Republicans. After the election, Reno directed the
| DOJ to prosecute M$. What a circus that was to see. Then,
| you know what really hit the fan, Microsoft backed Dave
| Stirling in California. Democrats were going to do
| anything they could to destroy M$.
|
| Can you imagine someone going after Google, or Apple,
| because they won't let others put software on their
| devices? How anticompetitive is the Apple Store? Can I
| please remove Chrome off my Chromebook, and use Firefox?
| Google and Apple donate heavily to Democrats, as does
| Microsoft today. You're not going to see it used where it
| needs to be, related to technology, IMHO.
|
| I'm not picking on Democrats, there are plenty of
| anticompetitive right leaning companies as well (The
| Banks, Oil & Gas Industry, Agriculture...).
| larinzod wrote:
| >Anytime the government does anything, it is not to help
| you or me.
|
| This is a Regan Republican era talking point. Government
| is supposed to work for the people but for the last 40
| years it has been used as a boogieman to push agendas
| which are actively not in the interest of the people.
|
| In the US much harm has been done by under staffing and
| purposely slashing budgets of organizations that benefit
| the people. The amplification of "government doesn't
| help" comes from those regulated by the government. OSHA
| enforcing safe working environments? "Government meddling
| in my business driving my costs up!" IRS auditing,
| catching tax cheats, and closing loopholes? "Government
| stealing my hard earned profits!" Look at the attacks on
| the EPA since they are trying to protect vulnerable
| waterways that property developers want exploit and
| manufactures want to dump into.
|
| So let's fund and staff the FTC and let it go after all
| of them. We need government in our corner going after the
| Banks, Big Tech, Oil, Commercial Agriculture, Pharma,
| etc.
|
| The narrative needs to change so we aren't dealing with
| these issues in a reactive way.
| danaris wrote:
| > Anytime the government does anything, it is not to help
| you or me.
|
| So you believe the government is _entirely_ a self-
| serving, wholly corrupt organization, that does _nothing_
| to help the people?
|
| This is an extraordinary claim, and requires
| extraordinary proof.
|
| Or are you assuming that everyone here is among the
| moneyed elite, and claiming that the government's actions
| are directed at reducing the power of that class to
| benefit the common people?
|
| That would be much closer to the truth, but is certainly
| nowhere near as absolute as you make it sound.
|
| Whatever your intent here, the absolutism you display
| makes your statement patently false to anyone who has any
| real understanding of how governments--or, indeed, nearly
| _any_ large organization--work.
| mattkrause wrote:
| The dastardly National Parks system! (I'm also pretty
| happy with the FAA, Library of Congress, NOAA, NIH, NSF,
| etc)
| joe_guy wrote:
| fyi, arguments become immediately less convincing when
| they include "m$"
|
| (or make a lot of politically one sided claims without
| citation)
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > fyi, arguments become immediately less convincing when
| they include "m$"
|
| OK... but deviantbit's comment clearly presents Microsoft
| as the victim of corrupt government officials, which
| isn't really compatible with calling it M$. It seems more
| likely that the use of M$ in "Democrats were going to do
| anything they could to destroy M$" is to present M$ as a
| label given to Microsoft by the Democrats in order to
| make it easier to attack. He's _trying_ to tell you that
| arguments based on the epithet "M$" are or should be
| unconvincing.
| deviantbit wrote:
| M$ was what Democrats would call Microsoft to demonize
| them. Just as Biden is demonizing the oil industry. Biden
| mocked the entire oil industry for making $100 billion
| dollars. Yet, Apple made $155 billion in 2021.
|
| No democrat has asked Apple to turn those profits over,
| or wanted a wind fall tax. Why? Apple donates heavily to
| Democrats, and this is why you will never see an anti-
| trust suite.
|
| You can be upset with this, but that is reality.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| We all know that a sample size of 1 can prove anything.
| mistermann wrote:
| Less well known: it only requires one exception to prove
| a proposition false.
|
| Not to mention: individual citizens have next to no
| insight into what really happens within various
| governmental agencies. And culturally, the tendency is to
| assume that one's preferred beliefs are true.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It's difficult to staff with people who don't have
| opinions, and sometimes those opinions coincide with or
| bend towards other nexuses of power.
|
| But finding an uncorruptible, unopinionated,
| independently-minded civil servant... who also values
| service over salary... is a pretty tough ask. ;)
| acdha wrote:
| There's a difference between having opinions while
| sharing the goal of having a functional system and being
| Ajit Pai. There are many civil servants who put aside
| their personal politics trying to make the government
| succeed.
| favorited wrote:
| You're not wrong, but it's important to remember that
| Ajit Pai was _not_ a civil servant - he was a political
| appointee. Civil servants are career government
| employees, whose jobs are not tied to an election,
| administration, or term in office.
|
| Civil servants necessarily put their own personal
| politics aside, because in all likelihood they will serve
| under several different political administrations. That
| is not the case, nor the expectation, for political
| appointees.
| acdha wrote:
| Good clarification -- I was thinking the appointee level
| because this thread was talking about the overall
| direction of the FTC, and I was looking for a comparison
| which most people here would be familiar with where you
| could see the difference between people who differ in
| priorities versus those who seem to think the agency
| should not exist.
|
| I should have clarified that my next sentence was
| switching to refer to the people who implement policies
| set by the senior levels: there are many people who do
| not agree with all of those decisions but will try their
| best to implement them because they want to make the
| country more successful or believe that a law needs to be
| enforced even if someone on their side broke it.
| nailer wrote:
| So... they're going to do something about the app store duopoly?
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| No, but the EU is.
| threeseed wrote:
| Given what we saw in Netherlands with the dating apps this
| isn't going to make a single bit of difference.
|
| Yes Apple may be forced to allow alternate stores and payment
| methods. But they will still collect their percentage (in
| Netherlands it was standard 15% - 3% discount). What happened
| of course is that apps ended up being far more expensive on
| alternate stores than on Apple's one.
|
| And even worse for alternate stores is that it would be quite
| likely for technical reasons that your app could only be sold
| from one store. Which means you would have to give up the
| distribution of App Store for your largely insignificant one.
|
| And note that this was all found to be compliant with the
| government: https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/13/apple-dutch-
| dating-apps-pa...
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| The DMA is much more broader and strict than what happened
| in the Netherlands.
|
| Besides, what would you pay Apple _for_ , exactly, when not
| using the App Store?
| threeseed wrote:
| You would be paying Apple for the cost of using their
| platform.
|
| No different to how you pay a percentage of sales for
| using most game engines.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| What platform? I already paid Apple for my use of iOS
| when I bought the phone. Are you implying people should
| pay Apple for making apps that call up iOS APIs? APIs
| that all the people who bought the phone and own a copy
| of iOS already paid for?
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| As a customer you are implicitly if not explicitly buying
| an iOS device with the understanding it can only run iOS
| Apps.
|
| Apple's APIs are proprietary, and they charge 15-30% of
| all digital sales to to build an iOS App. This is not
| different than Epic charging X% for use of the Unreal
| Engine's APIs to build a game.
|
| That said, I would like to see Apple forced to document
| their hardware, and allow dual booting to other operating
| systems on their devices. While iOS can be AppStore wall
| garden, it should be possible for me to install Linux or
| Android on my iDevice / MacBook.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > This is not different than Epic charging X% for use of
| the Unreal Engine's APIs to build a game.
|
| It is completely different. You are distributing the
| Unreal Engine with every game you make. You aren't
| distributing any proprietary code with your iOS app, it
| only calls up APIs that are already paid for by the user
| and for which the user already has a copy.
|
| A good analogy would be me making a new control panel for
| a mechanical machine, where the panel has metal arms and
| rods that connect to the machine's original mechanisms to
| bring about a certain result that the machine itself
| would be incapable of bringing on its own.
|
| You wouldn't say I can't distribute that new panel I made
| because the original machine is patented, right?
| [deleted]
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| If you tried to make money from it I'd say you owe the
| original machine and its patents a royalty.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Why so? I'm not selling or in any way distributing the
| patented machine, which is what really matters legally.
|
| Or are you arguing in an ethical sense?
| MR4D wrote:
| I honestly think the government prefers it. Both app stores are
| American, and fewer people to call when they need a favor done.
| [deleted]
| ridgered4 wrote:
| I wouldn't even rate the app store duopoly in my top 10 to go
| after to be honest. Things like the Luxottica group seem like
| much higher priorities to me.
| creddit wrote:
| Really? Sunglasses before control over the 100s of Millions
| of devices the vast majority of people use for hours every
| day?
| ArcticLandfall wrote:
| > Sunglasses before control over the 100s of Millions of
| devices
|
| More importantly, medical eyeglasses that many people rely
| on to see properly.
| [deleted]
| Communitivity wrote:
| With two major events in the news, I am wonder which of these (if
| either) may drivers for this.
|
| Is it door #1: Elon Musk allegedly violating FTC restrictions
| with Twitter changes?
|
| Or is it door #2: Binance seemingly doing a backstab of FTX and
| acquiring it, thereby throwing cryptoland into a panic?
|
| Or is it door #3: something completely different, or a
| combination of both?
| [deleted]
| threeseed wrote:
| Or more likely neither.
|
| Because legislation like this takes a long time to produce
| since you have to meet with stakeholders, have lawyers review
| for loopholes etc.
| derefr wrote:
| Neither; things like this are planned and scheduled on slower
| timescales than news cycles.
|
| This one is likely due Biden being done his "settling into
| office" period, and having begun (over the last 6-12 months) to
| push regulatory agencies under the executive into more
| democrat-oriented stances.
|
| If there was any recent event that caused the FTC to (be told
| to) "pull the trigger" on this, it was the midterm election
| effectively "taking the temperature of the country", and
| finding enough confidence remaining there to push through
| things like this without being likely to set off widespread
| discontentment in the news media.
| willcipriano wrote:
| > The Policy Statement lays out the Commission's approach to
| policing them. It is the result of many months of work across
| agency departments.
|
| If it was a particular event it would've happened many months
| ago.
| LegitShady wrote:
| i have not read a single source that claimed musk violated ftc
| restrictions.
| mdorazio wrote:
| Unpopular opinion: I wish this law extended to startups using VC
| cash to offer products at artificially low prices. When done at
| sufficient scale (ex. Uber), it massively distorts markets and is
| very much anticompetitive, even if consumers benefit for some
| time.
| [deleted]
| dcgudeman wrote:
| It's unpopular because it's a bad idea. Sometimes products or
| services aren't unit economical at small scale and need to be
| subsidized until they are adopted en masse.
| codeisawesome wrote:
| "Chip War" by Chris Miller describes how Silicon Valley first
| successfully pulled this off, when Robert Noyce spearheaded
| the selling of chips at or under manufacturing cost in the
| 60s to wean off dependence on government contracts and get
| regular customers interested. It did work in that instance,
| but I guess the real question is when & how that framework
| should be applied.
|
| A tempting idea is to judge whether or not the final
| good/service is indispensable for the users (and how likely
| monopoly can be established), such that prices can be raised
| to recoup the losses. But that alone doesn't seem to be
| sufficient as shown by the MoviePass collapse. Lots of
| ingredients to get right!
| tumetab1 wrote:
| I think that most problems being caused by VC cash would
| disappear if the interest rates would stay above 2%.
|
| Is pretty hard to keep Uber, Netflix, WeWork, etc. afloat if
| the VC cash was so cheap to VCs.
| habosa wrote:
| This. It's not just startups, big companies do it too.
|
| The best recent example is Google Photos. Google announced
| "free and unlimited" photos storage to everyone one day. Every
| other paid photo app out there fell of a cliff. Nobody else
| could give away terabytes of cloud storage for free.
|
| Then once there were no good competitors left, Google suddenly
| reversed course. Now it's only free for reduced quality. Ok now
| it's only free up to 15GB ... and if you fill up that 15GB
| you'll stop getting your emails!
|
| Legitimate mafia behavior.
| surement wrote:
| How is it anticompetitive? Charging lower prices means making
| less profit. If Uber somehow lost money to drive out
| competitors (an insane strategy), then the capital of any
| bankrupted taxi company could be bought up for cheaper than the
| company originally paid by someone who could then continue to
| compete with Uber.
| danaris wrote:
| Read up on Wal-Mart's practices some time.
|
| Selling products or services at a loss in order to drive out
| competitors is a _classic_ anticompetitive tactic that has
| killed countless otherwise-successful small businesses.
| thisisnotatest wrote:
| Check out "Uber is a bezzle" by Cory Doctorow. His allegation
| is this scheme:
|
| 1. Early VC funds are used to subsidize Uber rides at a loss
| to Uber.
|
| 2. The deep discounts made Uber attractive to drivers and
| customers.
|
| 3. Uber's soaring popularity attracts more investment in Uber
| stock.
|
| 4. Uber's early investors cash out. Society is harmed as
| later investors lose their money, Uber drivers who invested
| in vehicles can no longer get work, public transit ridership
| is hollowed out, etc.
| habosa wrote:
| > If Uber somehow lost money to drive out competitors (an
| insane strategy)
|
| This is literally what happened.
| alexb_ wrote:
| >If Uber somehow lost money to drive out competitors (an
| insane strategy)
|
| This is quite exactly what they did.
| notacoward wrote:
| If a company used _its own_ prior profits, or profits from
| another product line, to lower prices and drive a competitor
| out of business before raising prices again, that would be
| illegal. Why is it any different when the subsidy comes from
| outside?
| TheRealNGenius wrote:
| ghostbrainalpha wrote:
| Ticketmaster has been pissing on the FTC for 30 years.
|
| I'm not crossing my fingers for much, but anything they do at
| this point would be awesome.
| canucklady wrote:
| Yeah forcing Ticketmaster and Live Nation to unmerge, divest
| venues and reselling platforms, and preventing exclusive
| contracts with venues would be huge. Even in a very
| conservative interpretation of antitrust law there has clearly
| been an increase in prices to end consumers.
| 0cVlTeIATBs wrote:
| The conspiracy theory is the bands and venues also profit
| more from what ticketmaster does. Ticketmaster's raison
| d'etre is to be the punching bag.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Why use Ticketmaster, then?
|
| I will sell tickets for your band/venue at whatever price
| you want, declare x% of the price a "fee," and give most of
| the fee back to you. I'll happily be the punching bag, but
| it won't work. Your fans will be upset with _you_ , not me,
| for choosing a podunk, unheard of ticket seller that
| charges egregious fees.
|
| The only reason why your band is going to choose
| Ticketmaster over my is because Ticketmaster already
| controls the market.
| donavanm wrote:
| No. You physically _can not_ run a major (arena /stadium)
| tour without using live nation. They own or have cross
| deals with the production company, venue, etc. Even pre-
| merger they had their hands in many many many pies. Its
| not just ubiquity of the ticketing.
| sixothree wrote:
| Don't they also own many venues as well?
| bombcar wrote:
| Ticketmaster does exactly what you say but everyone
| blames Ticketmaster and the bands can say "it's our only
| option".
|
| It's a great racket if you can get it setup. Encore and
| hotels have a similar one.
| [deleted]
| ninth_ant wrote:
| From the perspective of "is this anti-competitive and
| hurting consumers" it's irrelevant if Ticketmaster is the
| Big Bad End Guy or just a stooge.
|
| The important part is, anti-competitive behaviour leads to
| higher prices and lower levels of innovation.
| dmix wrote:
| A small subset of the B2B-level customers always benefits
| from monopolies. But this only reduces competition in
| their own markets... in this case the limited set of
| musicians and record labels who succeed via special
| treatment by Ticketmaster's monopoly.
|
| Ultimately it harms more musicians/labels than it
| benefits. Especially in the long run.
|
| This shows that monopolies not only harm their own
| markets but plenty of sub-markets as well.
|
| The influence successful companies have on gov policy-
| making is one of the best arguments against ever more
| specialized gov intervention in markets. The best
| solution is gov policy that shuts down anti-competitive
| behaviour full-stop.
|
| Not creating specialized 200+ page bills that can be
| exploited by the big players (see how Dodd-Frank resulted
| in only 5 mega-banks controlling a market while tons of
| small/medium banks shut down due to their unrealistic
| requirements) - which is often what's pushed both by
| politicians and inadvertently by the public who buy into
| false narratives about punishing corporate greed.
| donavanm wrote:
| Im 10-15 years out if date, but no. When I was friends with
| MPA/CAA touring folks _no one_ was pro live nation or
| ticket master. They were at best a necessary evil that you
| dealt with in order to get market /venue access. Everyone
| was moving to make money on merch and direct sales. And
| that was before the bigger consolidations and "resale
| marketplace" grift of the past decade.
| edwnj wrote:
| valeness wrote:
| How is this the worker owned means of production (communism)?
| shmerl wrote:
| So Apple is finally going to allow competing browsers on iOS and
| be held accountable for not doing it until now?
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-11 23:02 UTC)