
We can break up Big Tech - dsr12
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c
======
andreilys
Meanwhile, tech companies in China will steamroll and take over global markets
because they don't have to deal with their own politicians trying to dismantle
and destroy them.

~~~
CharlesW
To make sure I understand, you're willing to endure an innovation-stifling
technology monoculture in the U.S. in order to defend against a hypothetical
Chinese threat?

~~~
gbacon
What monoculture?

~~~
azinman2
I’m guessing they’re referring to FAANG

~~~
gbacon
Please apply the principle of charity.

In context, my question calls for stronger evidence than _ipse dixit_ for this
charge of monoculture.

~~~
azinman2
There’s no lack of proof (or commentary, thereof) that FAANG has bought many,
many companies... effectively vacuuming up much talent and potential
competition (and just businesses in general), transforming whatever they
bought into an existing product (line). In fact, that’s partially what
Warren’s article is about. This leads to a bit of monoculture because you get
so much of the workforce in just a few companies with outsized influence and
singular-ish identities.

------
juanbyrge
She sounds out of touch with reality. First of all, she is using the Microsoft
example to justify breaking apart the companies, when Microsoft itself never
got broken up. Microsoft’s mismanagement contributed more to their decline
than any regulations.

I guarantee that if we wait 10 years the landscape for these big tech
companies will be very different.

~~~
robjan
This week Microsoft became the third company to be worth over a trillion US
dollars. I don't think it's in decline.

~~~
asaph
At the time of this writing, at a $996.5B market cap, Microsoft is the biggest
publicly traded company in the world.

~~~
bennybob
Yes but it did go into decline for a while until it reinvented itself. It's
lost its dominance in OSs and web browsers. Government intervention didn't
cause that, free markets did.

~~~
asaph
My point is that the article speaks of Microsoft in the past tense and focuses
on breaking up "today's big tech" companies. Meanwhile Microsoft is bigger
than all of them right now.

------
prepend
I’m not sure unwinding Zappos really matters.

Just applying antitrust to future mergers would likely have more impact.

I would like her plan for mergers like Disney/Fox or Comcast/TW.

This seems like piecemeal trying to retcon some items instead of setting up a
principle-based approach that would prevent future issues.

------
formercoder
Regulatory changes may be needed but some of this piece indicates a clear lack
of understanding of the tech sector and basic finance.

“Venture capitalists are now hesitant to fund new startups to compete with
these big tech companies because it’s so easy for the big companies to either
snap up growing competitors”

VCs have stopped funding startups because... they might exit? Of course
there’s no mention of increasing interest rates leading to reduced equity
funding as is perfectly logical.

I also wonder how we can even think about Google Search under this platform
utility model. By definition they are the only seller in the market. Is that
wrong? They are simply selling access to inventory (impressions) like any
traditional business.

Regarding mergers. Who is going to write this new regulation over which
mergers are acceptable and which are not? The same people who don’t understand
the inverse relationship between rates and equity valuation that you learn in
any finance 101 course?

~~~
jmull
> VCs have stopped funding startups because... they might exit?

I think her point is that big companies can essentially force startups to exit
early under the threat of being driven out of business. You cut out part of
the sentence that provides the context for that: "...it’s so easy for the big
companies to either snap up growing competitors _or drive them out of
business_..."

~~~
Hydraulix989
Yes, big companies will copy you and pour their endless resources into
outpricing and outhustling you. They will then append new rules to their terms
of service, banning your app from their digital stores, pulling your social
media accounts on their platforms, etc. They will use their PR ammunition to
rewrite history, casting you as a rule breaker.

------
malvosenior
> _Using Mergers to Limit Competition._

The problem isn't with tech giants doing M&A, it's that the government
effectively shutdown the option to IPO for all but the largest companies with
Sarbanes Oxley. Remove that excessive regulation and startups will have a
choice other than to sell to FB when they come knocking.

~~~
notacoward
> government effectively shutdown the option to IPO for all but the largest
> companies with Sarbanes Oxley

Can you elaborate on that, or provide a link to someoene else who can? It
seems like a bit of a stretch TBH, but I'm willing to consider reasoned
arguments.

------
hackerman12345
Warren goes a bit incoherent when she writes that Amazon buying Whole Foods is
a big anti-competitive problem...

------
vumgl
The devil is in the details: what happens when a company is approaching the
$25B mark? \- would it slow/stop its growth? \- will it fight the law with
endless court battles? \- will it break up and see revenues slow down, then
re-merge?

------
gbacon
_Here’s what won’t change: You’ll still be able to go on Google and search
like you do today. You’ll still be able to go on Amazon and find 30 different
coffee machines that you can get delivered to your house in two days. You’ll
still be able to go on Facebook and see how your old friend from school is
doing._

The problem is we’ve heard this before. “If you like your
Google/Amazon/Facebook, you can _keep_ your Google/Amazon/Facebook.”

~~~
Mirioron
I don't see how the Google example stays the same. From everything I've heard,
Google's different services rely on their other services to actually work.
YouTube lost them money for a long time (maybe still does?), so I'm not sure
how they would uncouple this from selling ads.

