Ben Thompson’s Stratechery, Part 2

In which the Kool-Aid gets stirred

Tim Wu
15 min readNov 5, 2020
Credit Ben Thompson, usage via 17 USC 107

I was impressed by, and enjoyed, the first two-thirds of Ben Thompson’s response to my critique of his work related to tech platforms and the Google antitrust case. (The last third is more regrettable, but I’ll address that, too.) I’ve enjoyed most of the exchange, and it has helped me clarify my thoughts. In particular, I’ve come to feel that Google’s spending $30 billion on traffic acquisition feels too much like the kind of thing Net Neutrality was trying to prevent back in the 2000s. But more on that later.

Overall I’d say Thompson’s response hasn’t done much to counter my core critique. He is too quick to jump from model to reality, too quick to assume that one important source of advantage represents something close to the full picture. As I said, his work is insightful for understanding tech business models, but when it comes to antitrust, it is on much shakier ground. And the hardest part for him to defend is the assertion that various costs, including switching costs, are zero or near zero. For doing so assumes away the costs that could be critical in determining strategic advantage, winners and losers, and at some point, liability in a lawsuit.

Let’s focus on the Google case, which, ironically, we agree on — it is nonetheless a good proxy to examine our differences…

--

--

Tim Wu

Professor at Columbia University; author of “The Curse of Bigness,” “The Attention Merchants,” and “The Master Switch;” veteran of Silicon Valley & Obama Admin.