• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m all for reigning in monopolies, but I actually don’t see how this is anticompetitive.

      • nixcamic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you want to start a competitor to Spotify or Google music, you will have to pay those fees making it almost impossible for you to compete.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A company giving special access to it’s competition on a platform they control is usually used as an indicator of not being anticompetitive.

          I hadn’t considered it from a “collusion” angle.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Eh, when Microsoft was required to ask you which browser you wanted, they didn’t need to offer every browser, just theirs, firefox and Chrome.

              This could definitely be collusion, but I don’t think that not extending it to all competitiors is what makes it that.

      • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How? Special back door secret deals for one and only one company is the definition of anticompetitive.

        Competition is defined as more than one lol

        Edit: I’m special, I am first place! But if you knew it was 1st place of one… I sure hope you think me as noncompetitive…🤣 It’s strange to me to think I’m competitive if I have no competitors.