Re:Goodreads was the future of book reviews. Then Amazon bou...
by fsckboy on Monday July 03, 2023 @02:45PM
(#36577238)
Vertical consolidation is also monopolistic, it reduces competition by removing a buyer and a seller from a healthy marketplace.
what is actually good for consumers is fierce competition spoiling the sleep of capitalists.
Re:Goodreads was the future of book reviews. Then Amazon bou...
by crazygringo on Monday July 03, 2023 @06:04PM
(#36579418)
It's still the same rules though.
If you're buying a supplier for 5% of the marketplace it's perfectly fine.
If you're buying a supplier for 65% of the market then that's a problem.
Re:Goodreads was the future of book reviews. Then Amazon bou...
by fsckboy on Monday July 03, 2023 @10:03PM
(#36581275)
a supplier for 65% of the market is already a problem. Were the any acquisitions on the way to that market position?
even if there weren't, it's still too big, break it in half. Shareholders will still own what they owned before, 65% of the market, and all the IP that is contained therein, but the companies will have to compete.
There's no problem if a company with 2% of the market merges with another company with 2% -- it tends to lower prices by removing inefficiencies. It's only a problem when prices rise or innovation stops when there are only ~2 competitors left, or when the a single player has 40%+ market share.
Also a large proportion of mergers have nothing to do with market share -- they're acquiring a supplier for vertical consolidation, they're buying a product because it's faster than building it in-house, etc. These are generally entirely legitimate as they enable companies to compete more, not less -- which is good for consumers.