Comment by nickpp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickpp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Debatable.

It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs.

> Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation

The slap on the wrist Microsoft received with the antitrust action was completely inconsequential on the subject matter (browser bundling) but managed to discourage the company and thus reduced competition exactly when we needed it the most: at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit - instead of startups. Because regulation favors the incumbents. Always.

And you can't count the unfounded startups but I am not happy with the state of competition in today's high-tech scene. I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s. I blame it squarely on government regulation: the Microsoft lawsuit and Sarbanes-Oxley. Their chilling effect on startup creation was clearly visible in the 00's.

> It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs.

Too bad. Entrepreneurs serve the customers. If you won't build it, we won't go. We shall simply patronize other businesses.

> at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit

Microsoft was already stumbling in the Ballmer years long before mobile - they failed to capitalize on the internet itself, they couldn't build a compelling search engine, for starters. They couldn't even get the Zune to be a lasting brand. None of this is due to antitrust, but to their own organizational dysfunctions and inability to execute.

> I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s.

Ah yes, the demise of BeOS and OS/2 was caused by government regulation, and not Wintel dominance.

> We shall simply patronize other businesses.

Which won’t be any new business, since you know, no startups. So we’ll patronize whatever state-granted too-big-to-fail monopolist is left and then whine for more regulations when their planes fall from the sky.

There are also foreign companies which will fill the market need. Also, there are other types of new businesses besides VC-funded startups. We will shop at boutiques and lifestyle businesses.

> foreign companies

Incumbents by definition. Besides, crushing your local businesses in favor of foreign competition is not a very smart strategy.

> boutiques and lifestyle businesses

Which are also obeying startups laws and thus are simply not started under an onerous regulatory regime.

Antitrust laws do not impact startups, but entrenched incumbents deemed monopolies. Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, is generally not considered a startup. Wikipedia has information if you need to learn about it.

> Besides, crushing your local businesses in favor of foreign competition is not a very smart strategy.

Customers don’t care.

> Antitrust laws do not impact startups

They do, through second order effects. Read up on them.

> Customers don’t care.

Of course we care. We get attached to the brands we buy and value the services and products they provide. And most of all we care about reduced competition.

We get attached to newer brands if they provide greater value, especially at equal or lower cost.

Why do we care about "competition" when it's ultimately all about the user experience? The streaming market has a surfeit competition right now and customers loathe having to juggle between half a dozen different services just to get the content they want to watch. In that space, some are even yearning for a return to monopoly, or cable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com