This idea implies something akin to an implicit patent on every imaginable product "merit". But I should remind you that patents are not intended to be free market devices - rather, if a patent is granted, it is monopoly given in exchange for an individual describing their honest advancement of the craft. If Snap deserved a patent on their "business process", they could have stopped Facebook, if not, there's no reason that a deep pocketed entity shouldn't look at modest innovations and copy them. The alternative is every small innovation is controlled by a petty dictator, blocking all progress.
If you are a creative person you are enthused about streaming because suddenly there’s a huge amount of content being funded. Think about standup comedy and what Netflix has done for it.
Netflix is run by very smart people who are making very good content that most Hollywood execs wouldn’t touch. Scorcese’s next film is being funded by them! It’s nuts that Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed, multiple Scorsese projects were VERY HARD to fund. Jonah Hill worked essentially for the lowest money you can work for in a movie (SAG which is the actors union says 20k minimum) in Wolf of Wall St. Because they couldn’t afford him. Stuff that you look back and wonder “how the fuck?”
Is it the controversial nature i.e. nudity etc that was the problem?
google, microsoft, apple, facebook, ibm, apple
Oracle and rising powers like PayPal and Salesforce would make more sense. The latter companies still do a fraction of IBM’s revenue and profit. but they’re growing. I wouldn’t be surprised if their market caps are past IBM by now.
Unless IBM is being included because of the Red Hat acquisition.
and that’s just the average. Today they’re a trillion dollar company. That’s 2x Facebook.
And yeah, ibm is included because it makes the mneumonic better.
It's not quite as clear cut as you say. The downsides of being locked into a single platform exist, but the upsides of a new feature benefiting from an existing network also exist. Many consumers have benefited by getting access to ephemeral messages with their existing friends, when they wouldn't have installed a separate app and nagged their friends to switch just to get that feature.
Does having deeper pockets mean you aren't allowed to learn from competitors who do something better than you do? Should Snapchat not be allowed to have a social graph because Facebook has one? It really seems like those who think stories was just "copying to kill Snapchat" actually think something like the former, but not the latter, despite the logic being identical.
"Fair market competition" is the idea that products compete on their own merits, not that you can leverage your market position to destroy competitors. "Deeper pockets" is certainly antithetical to fair competition even if it's a reality we must sometimes accept. Exploiting the fact that you have "more users" should probably also be looked at as anti-competitive since it certainly doesn't benefit consumers by locking people into exclusive platforms.
Are we really going to resign ourselves to the idea that FAANG will now and forever own nearly all the internet? What good are the "principles" of "free market competition" if we allow consolidation to effectively eliminate the market?