> The problem was letting Meta buy up all of it's competition until almost nobody wants to compete in it's market
It is almost like I said this right at the start and you are all ignoring it.
Punishing a relatively small player (Adobe) has had this knock on effect on the entire ecosystem that coincidentally benefits the larger players by making their already big positions unassailable. Follow the second order effects here.
Edit to add:
> The bad thing you said is what's being prevented here and somehow you're against it. That line of reasoning doesn't follow.
The point is that in a world that tolerates the ongoing existence of FAANG (+Adobe +Microsoft +Oracle etc.) as the monopolies they already are you must allow large acquisitions in order to enable the emergence of new competitors, either directly or as a result of the founders making a second shot. Otherwise their defensive moat is just hilarious.
The absolute best option is to break up the monopolies, then be stricter about their emergence in future i.e. through blocking acquisitions. But you cannot do this by starting at the end like this, as it makes it worse.
> The point is that in a world that tolerates the ongoing existence of FAANG (+Adobe +Microsoft +Oracle etc.) as the monopolies they already are you must allow large acquisitions in order to enable the emergence of new competitors
You keep asserting this without any evidence. I keep explaining why this is false.
Instead of asserting it again, would you mind explaining how you view that Adobe being allowed to purchase Figma in anyway increases competition with any FANNG companies?
> You keep asserting this without any evidence. I keep explaining why this is false.
You keep failing to read what I wrote.
> Instead of asserting it again, would you mind explaining how you view that Adobe being allowed to purchase Figma in anyway increases competition with any FANNG companies?
You are the one making assertions with no evidence. You even make assertions about what I have said which are obviously wrong.
I will try one last time. You keep making statements of the form "you must do A to get B". I keep asking you to explain why, and your answer is "I already stated it before. You must do A to get B".
Either attempt to actually explain the specific link, the specific steps between A and B, or admit there is nothing more you're giving than empty assertions.
Someone who refuses to support his/her points is not worth debating.
It is almost like I said this right at the start and you are all ignoring it.
Punishing a relatively small player (Adobe) has had this knock on effect on the entire ecosystem that coincidentally benefits the larger players by making their already big positions unassailable. Follow the second order effects here.
Edit to add: > The bad thing you said is what's being prevented here and somehow you're against it. That line of reasoning doesn't follow.
The point is that in a world that tolerates the ongoing existence of FAANG (+Adobe +Microsoft +Oracle etc.) as the monopolies they already are you must allow large acquisitions in order to enable the emergence of new competitors, either directly or as a result of the founders making a second shot. Otherwise their defensive moat is just hilarious.
The absolute best option is to break up the monopolies, then be stricter about their emergence in future i.e. through blocking acquisitions. But you cannot do this by starting at the end like this, as it makes it worse.