The FTC's antitrust lawsuit against Meta kicked off in federal court. The FTC argues that Meta illegally monopolized the virtual reality market by acquiring Within, maker of the popular fitness app Supernatural, and is seeking to force Meta to divest the company. Meta contends that the acquisition was pro-competitive, benefiting consumers and developers alike. The trial's outcome holds significant weight for the future of VR and the FTC's ability to challenge Big Tech acquisitions in nascent markets.
Brother is facing accusations of using firmware updates to lock out third-party ink cartridges in some of their printers. The updates reportedly disable functionality for these cheaper alternatives, forcing users to buy more expensive Brother-branded ink. Further fueling the controversy, Brother has allegedly removed older firmware versions from their support website, preventing users from downgrading and regaining compatibility with third-party cartridges. This effectively traps users with the update and limits their ink choices.
Hacker News commenters generally express cynicism and frustration with Brother's alleged firmware update tactic. Many see it as a predictable anti-competitive move designed to force customers into buying expensive proprietary ink cartridges. Some commenters share personal anecdotes of similar experiences with Brother and other printer manufacturers, reinforcing the perception of planned obsolescence and vendor lock-in. Several suggest that this practice further incentivizes exploring alternative printing solutions, including continuous ink systems (CIS) or different printer brands altogether. A few users offer technical insights, speculating on the methods Brother might be using to block third-party cartridges and discussing potential workarounds. Some also debate the legality and ethics of such practices.
Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging anti-competitive practices related to its relationship with WP Engine, a managed WordPress hosting provider. The lawsuit claims Automattic leveraged its control over the WordPress open-source software to coerce WP Engine into an agreement that benefited Automattic's own hosting services while harming WP Engine and potentially other competitors. Specifically, the suit alleges Automattic threatened to remove WP Engine's access to essential WordPress features and updates unless WP Engine agreed to restrict its sales of certain hosting plans. This alleged coercion is claimed to have stifled competition in the managed WordPress hosting market, ultimately inflating prices for consumers.
Hacker News users discuss Automattic's alleged anti-competitive practices regarding WordPress hosting. Several commenters express skepticism about the merits of the lawsuit, suggesting it's opportunistic and driven by lawyers. Some highlight the difficulty of proving damages in antitrust cases and question whether WP Engine truly lacked viable alternatives. Others point out the irony of Automattic, a company often viewed as championing open source, being accused of anti-competitive behavior. A few commenters express concern about the potential impact on the WordPress ecosystem and the chilling effect such lawsuits could have on open-source projects. The overall sentiment seems to lean towards viewing the lawsuit with suspicion, pending further details.
Summary of Comments ( 298 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43680957
HN commenters discuss the difficulty of defining the relevant market in the Meta antitrust case, with some arguing that virtual reality fitness is a distinct market from broader social media or even general VR, while others believe the focus should be on Meta's overall social media dominance. Several commenters express skepticism about the FTC's case, believing it's weak and politically motivated, and unlikely to succeed given the high bar for antitrust action. The acquisition of Within is seen by some as a relatively small deal unlikely to warrant such scrutiny. Some discussion also revolves around the potential chilling effect of such lawsuits on acquisitions by large companies, potentially stifling innovation. A few commenters also mention the unusual courtroom setup with VR headsets provided, highlighting the novelty of the technology involved in the case.
The Hacker News post titled "Meta antitrust trial kicks off in federal court" has generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters offering their perspectives on the case and its potential implications.
A recurring theme in the comments is skepticism towards the FTC's case, with some users questioning the FTC's focus on acquisitions of Within and Instagram, arguing that these acquisitions did not stifle competition but instead brought VR fitness and photo sharing to a wider audience. One commenter points out the difficulty of proving consumer harm, especially given the free nature of Meta's services, and suggests that the FTC might be overreaching. Another comment echoes this sentiment, highlighting the lack of clear alternatives for users even if Meta hadn't made these acquisitions. A particularly compelling comment draws a parallel to Microsoft's antitrust case, arguing that focusing on acquisitions rather than the core product's behavior misses the mark and sets a bad precedent for future innovation. This commenter suggests that if the FTC wins, it could discourage large companies from acquiring smaller startups, hindering technological advancement.
Another thread of discussion revolves around the definition of the relevant market. Some users debate whether Meta holds a monopoly in "social media" as a broad category or if the market should be more narrowly defined, perhaps by specific functionalities like photo sharing or virtual reality fitness. This distinction is crucial for determining whether Meta's acquisitions were anti-competitive.
A few commenters also touch upon the political aspects of the case, with some suggesting that the FTC's pursuit of Meta is motivated by political pressure rather than genuine concern for consumer welfare. Others argue that large tech companies have accumulated too much power and need to be regulated regardless of the specifics of this particular case.
While there isn't overwhelming agreement on any single point, the comments collectively paint a picture of a complex case with significant implications for the future of antitrust law and the tech industry. Many commenters express doubts about the FTC's chances of success and raise concerns about the potential chilling effect on innovation if the FTC prevails.