Putting companies out of business is capitalism.
You’re being really dumb if you genuinely think dark sky is comparable to Instagram. I’ve tried to say it politely a few times now. But it’s just simply dumb. Sorry.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FTC Accuses Facebook of Social Media Monopoly, Calls for Divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You’re being really dumb if you genuinely think dark sky is comparable to Instagram. I’ve tried to say it politely a few times now. But it’s just simply dumb. Sorry.
Wow you are not really good with following a conversation. I never once compared Dark Sky to Instagram. Once again when a company limits competition that has absolutely nothing to do with if its a big company or a small company. My point was Apple purchases companies all the time. Those purchases have the effect of limiting competition. I had no idea we were talking about companies over a certain net worth. I know you don't think small companies matter, only big ones like Instagram. But I'm sure all the employees of those small companies would disagree with you.
Go read up on antitrust law and then come back and reread what you’ve just written.
here are some links
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 - Wikipedia
Sherman Antitrust Act - Wikipedia
What market do they monopolize?
In my mind, Facebook (a website), WhatsApp (a messaging platform) and Instagram (Twitter with pictures) are all different things. They came out of nowhere and can just as easily be made irrelevant again. Just like TikTok became a force of its own, apparently.
Will Facebook ever monopolize advertising? I doubt it— Google, Amazon and Apple all play in that space.
If the technological barriers are low, and market share is based on user preference, then their dominance is fragile. Facebook started by running without revenue for years to build a user base that they could eventually monetize. There’s nothing stopping someone else from doing the same and providing a better user experience.
At this stage of my life, I'm not so concerned about privacy anymore. However, I remain hopeful that Congress has the brains or the courage to break up all these thugs in manipulating and monopolizing.
It's entertaining to watch how the fakebook guy squirms to the point of watering eyes whenever he is caught lying before Congress. I forget the name of the scraggly guy with a junkie' style beard. They sheepishly state that they're not connected with certain departments' or details.
Conversely, the only person that presents with poise and confidence is Tim Cook. He responded with full knowledge of his company's inner workings and never made any attempt to pawn anything off under a pretense of not being directly connected. Heck, I'm not necessarily one of his biggest fans, but I do not believe it's in his nature to lie.
It's entertaining to watch how the fakebook guy squirms to the point of watering eyes whenever he is caught lying before Congress. I forget the name of the scraggly guy with a junkie' style beard. They sheepishly state that they're not connected with certain departments' or details.
Conversely, the only person that presents with poise and confidence is Tim Cook. He responded with full knowledge of his company's inner workings and never made any attempt to pawn anything off under a pretense of not being directly connected. Heck, I'm not necessarily one of his biggest fans, but I do not believe it's in his nature to lie.
Last edited:
Ugh go back and read the initial question about 5 pages back. I was asked to name a company apple purchased that had the effect of limiting competition. I never saw the disclaimer that it must be a big company over a certain net worth.
Yes good point. You’re right. Politicians aren’t the best at deciding such things. But I do think this is just ridiculous. Facebook will die all on it’s own with no help from anyone.
The whole context of the discussion is an anti-trust action against Facebook. Something you’re saying should happen to apple.
Its not my problem if you’ve forgotten the topic of the conversation
I never said it should happen to Apple. I said Apple, along with all big companies need oversight. Apple has made a LOT of acquisitions. It has made at least 4 or 5 different acquisitions I read about to bolster its Apple Music offering to combat Spotify. Everyone saying they welcome oversight and inquiry into Facebook should be saying the same thing about Apple. I am not advocating for a decision either way. Merely stating if Facebook needs oversight, then Apple most certainly does also.
Not if it can just buy any and all competitors.
If it weren’t for anti-trust law, you can be sure they’d have been first in the queue to buy tiktok. But by that point they knew the law was already catching up on them.
The difference is Apple built most of their empire, such as computers, iPads, iPhones, etc.
The companies that it purchased could be a different story though.
That's one of over 100 acquisitions Apple has made. No one knows the total amount of companies Apple has purchased. But I would bet every penny I'm worth they have made many times more acquisitions than Facebook has made. It's not even close.
The market for social communication.
Why Facebook Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Buy tbh
Facebook is acquiring tbh, another burgeoning social network; regulators erred in allowing the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions, but there is no better place to start enforcing the law than now.
stratechery.com
Ben Thompson of Statechery makes a pretty strong case as to why facebook should not be allowed to acquire or own other social media platforms. It’s not that there isn’t any competition. It’s that facebook owns at least one company in each respective quadrant and is able to leverage its dominance in one market to gain an advantage in the others.
The point is that there is a difference between competitive and anti-competitive behavior, and there are at least guidelines, as squishy and subjective as they might be, about what behaviors are legal and illegal. You can’t just say “they both buy companies, so they’re the same!”.
Putting someone out of business is not anti-competitive. If going out of business wasn’t a risk, then no one would ever compete. You’re also going to have to do some work to show how buying DarkSky put anyone out of business. If nothing else, you‘ve argued that there’s a huge uncontested market that just opened up for hyper local weather apps on Android.
I never said buying companies is anti-competitive. I said Apple should be subject to oversight just as Facebook is. If the result of that inquiry is they did nothing anti-copmpetitive then Apple should face no consequences. Saying a company should be subject to oversight based on their net worth and the amount of acquisitions they make is not the same as saying they are guilty of any wrongdoing.
All companies are subject to oversight. And the bigger they get, the more onerous the requirements. With great power comes great responsibility.
Purchasing small companies does not affect the market substantially. By definition.
Yes purchasing a small company is like throwing a pebble into the lake. But throwing many pebbles can lead to a wave. Apple purchases so many small companies that has to have an effect on the market. But the only way to find out would be an investigation by some oversight committee.
Apple dabbles in many markets. I don't have a clue which markets could be affected by all their acquisitions.
It’s odd to me because everyone can create a website. The barrier to entry is really, REALLY low. It’s nowhere near as hard as it it to become a player in, say, the telecom industry. How can someone create a monopoly in an industry so open and with so many opportunities? In fact, a very big percentage of the big websites of today, (including Facebook itself) were created by amateurs. Mac rumors, for example, like most websites was created a side project I believe.
Creating a *popular* social media website is hard, even Google and Apple failed miserably, but they didn’t fail because Facebook (and it’s monopoly practices) didn’t let them. Google and Apple have arguably more influence and power than Facebook. Especially Google. But being hard shouldn't = monopoly.
You have tik tok, which came out of the blue to become one the most popular social networks in the world, so there are still ways to grow in this industry.
Last edited:
But no one NEEDS facebook. It’s like having a lock on the Pet Rock market. This is about the Zeitgeist. Facebook and even Instagram are transitory pop culture. I think it’s preposterous to try and legislate pop culture trash.
But that comes to the very point. Apple do not have anything approaching a monopoly in any market they operate in except perhaps the App Store.