• 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.