←back to thread

431 points c420 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
henryfjordan ◴[] No.43685057[source]
> "The FTC's lawsuit against Meta defies reality. The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others," Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement.

Everyone knew at the time that Facebook bought Instagram because it threatened Facebook's dominance, and hindsight shows that exactly that happened. There's a huge swath of people that dropped off FB and now use Insta, but Meta owns both. It was a great move but it was absolutely anti-competitive at the time.

replies(19): >>43685508 #>>43685515 #>>43685646 #>>43685767 #>>43685806 #>>43685820 #>>43686547 #>>43686628 #>>43686655 #>>43687439 #>>43687599 #>>43688044 #>>43688162 #>>43688335 #>>43688415 #>>43689802 #>>43689816 #>>43690767 #>>43703847 #
Aunche ◴[] No.43687599[source]
> Everyone knew at the time that Facebook bought Instagram because it threatened Facebook's dominance, and hindsight shows that exactly that happened.

This is something that people can claim to know from hindsight. When Facebook acquired it, Instagram was a photo sharing app that had 13 employees.

replies(11): >>43687645 #>>43688368 #>>43688421 #>>43688518 #>>43688872 #>>43690553 #>>43690974 #>>43693673 #>>43694028 #>>43695549 #>>43697113 #
timewizard ◴[] No.43688872[source]
We have Zuckerberg's emails. No need to claim anything. He said it out loud:

“There are network effects around social products and a finite number of different social mechanics to invent. Once someone wins at a specific mechanic, it’s difficult for others to supplant them without doing something different.”

“One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again. Within that time, if we incorporate the social mechanics they were using, those new products won’t get much traction since we’ll already have their mechanics deployed at scale.”

Forty-five minutes later:

“I didn’t mean to imply that we’d be buying them to prevent them from competing with us in any way,”

replies(2): >>43689566 #>>43690700 #
1. DrScientist ◴[] No.43690700[source]
> “I didn’t mean to imply that we’d be buying them to prevent them from competing with us in any way,”

Isn't what matters in the end is whether there is still an effective market left as a result?

It seems that Mark himself is arguing that by the nature of the network effects of social media, first movers have a natural monopoly advantage that's hard to break.

The regulators should be focusing on that - ie enforcing rules which limit the monopoly advantage due to network effects.

Take the telecomms space - if somebody got first mover on a phone system and it wasn't interoperable with any others - then once established they would have a monopoly. The way you break that is to force interoperability - not allow companies to use access to the network as a competition barrier.

An example in the Meta space - as far as I can tell it was not possible for me to send a message to somebody in Whatsapp without going via whatsapp - ie there is no network access from a different app.

This appears to be exactly what the EU is focussed on - enforcing interop.

https://engineering.fb.com/2024/03/06/security/whatsapp-mess... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act