1249
US Court Rules Google a Monopoly in 'Biggest Antitrust Case of the 21st Century'.
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
1249 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59448 readers
3667 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just having a high market share isn't the issue. It's abusing that dominant market position that is.
Valve has been smart enough not to do that. Google, Amazon, Microsoft and the like haven't. In fact, Valve's competitors have been more anti-competitive than Valve.
ASML, who make EUV machines and other semiconductor tooling, is also in a dominant market position (way more dominant actually). Do you ever see calls to break them up? No. Because they haven't been abusing their power. They know that if they put a toe out of line, they'll be in trouble with regulators.
Google and the like have been able to act with impunity because the US protects them, to the detriment of their smaller companies and their citizens.
ASML is basically a strategic asset. Breaking them up to have a more level playing field inherently threatens the West's economic-political position. If ASML abused their position, it wouldn't be the regulators so much as the CIA that showed up to tell them to reconsider.
Really? Because they're part of the giants that determine game prices, pricing is based on everyone that takes a cut along the way, they take 30%, that's calculated into what games need to sell for, 30% is enough to make them billions in profit, billions in profit is money that came out of our pockets to go in Newell's pockets so he can own six yachts.
I swear if it was a public company people would be flipping out because their numbers would be public and the profit would be going to investors, but they're private and they only have one investor the profit goes to do that's perfectly fine I guess???
Antitrust is not about preventing big companies making money. It's about preventing specific practices by monopolies to restrict the free market and to abuse their users. Don't get me wrong, there's a ton I find morally objectionable with companies as big as Valve and people as rich as Gabe. We might agree on those issues. But this particular Google thing is about something else. And Valve is indeed different to most tech companies in that regard.
If you don't consider that a company taking billions out of our pockets and putting it in the pockets of a single person abuse then I don't know what to say.
30% is the industry standard.
Shit, doesn't YouTube take like 60%? I think Twitch takes a big chunk too. Gog takes 30%. MS takes 30%. Sony takes 30%. Nintendo takes 30%. Apple takes 30%. GameStop, BestBuy, Amazon, and Walmart all take roughly 30% too.
It's the industry standard.
And unlike the likes of the Play Store or App store, Valve provides a lot for that 30%.
free cloud sync
free online multiplayer (not a given, look at MS/Sony/Nintendo)
forums
game demos
game recording with some neat features
a VR system
in-home streaming
family game sharing
a review system
a mod distribution platform
dev tools
advertising
online services you can tie into your game
achievements
a cross-platform, userspace anti-cheat solution
notes
backwards compatibility tooling
OS compatibility layers
Linux development
driver development
vast controller support
performance overlays
steam input
the list goes on...
I'm not in love with everything Valve does (loot boxes, micro-transactions 🤢). But it's undeniable that compared to other companies that take the same (or higher) cut, you get a lot back.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to live in the fantasy world where they only take a 1% cut, but that's just what it is, a fantasy.
Ok so because it's the industry standard it's ok?
How about we focus on the fact that the industry standard makes owners and c-suite billionaires? Do you think people would start hating a company if they cut their share to 10% and prices came down instead of having that extra enrich the few?
Reread my comment. I'm not saying it's ok because it's the industry standard, I'm saying it's tolerable because it's the industry standard and yet despite their strong market position, they still consciously provide a good value.
And let's not pretend that even if everyone switched to a 10% margin (assuming that would even be profitable), people wouldn't then complain about 10% being too high. It's like taxes - no matter what it's set as, a significant amount of people will always say "that's too high! I don't want to pay that!"