Capitalizing on Fear for Anti-Competition

Following up on the previous post of WSJ buying ads on Twitter, I found an underlying trend to explain it and other similar situations – companies are afraid of the accusations that they are preventing or reducing competitions, especially in the tech industry where network effects is extremely strong and “winners take all”.

Just another example here – Amazon Music putting ads on YouTube.

Fundamentally, there are similar laws around the globe focusing on competition, anti-monopoly and antitrust. Twitter doesn’t want to make the case that it is discouraging other medias’ ads; YouTube doesn’t want to make the case that it is discouraging other music apps’ ads.

It has more profound meanings other than ads. Google was fined in Europe for bundling Android in June with its other services, reducing competitions in services such as search. Going way back, Microsoft’s antitrust case in 2001 is probably the most famous one – a settlement was reached for its bundling of Windows and IE (may discourage other web browsers).

This concept can be expanded into many fields. And the fear of being seen as anti-competition is deeply rooted in every tech company.

We should see that Apple should welcome YouTube and Amazon Music so that it won’t be charged as anti-competition in music distribution. Apple Music is born with a market share limit.

Other examples – Apple should keep Fitbit with its Apple Watch, Chrome should keep other search engines with Google Search, Amazon should keep those third-party items with its AmazonBasic lines, etc… Uber should keep Lyft, Intel should keep AMD. Disney should be careful for its contents and distribution channels, so does AT&T…

There are many more examples. And this will last in the foreseeable future, maybe until ordinary antitrust law can’t handle new norms. Or, it may lead to excessive capitalization on the law. Basically, the other side will use antitrust as an very effective weapon. It won’t be a commonly used weapon among small companies due to high legal costs and lack of resources to maintain big market share. But it may be used more often by relatively big companies to expand into new fields with meaningful presence, building into conglomerates in the new era.