Hacker News

points by slantedview 12 hours ago | 0 comments

It's clearly anti-competitive.

The Doordash acquisition of Instacart increases competition. You are missing something fundamental if you think "2 services becoming one means less competition."

Doordash attempted to buy Instacart in 2021 for $40-50B dollars. Since then Instacart has lost market share and value, and Doordash is now acquiring them for $17B.

The real competitors to Doordash and Instacart for grocery delivery are not each other. The competitors are Walmart, Amazon, and local grocery chains (Meijer, Kroger, etc). And guess what? These competitors are winning. Amazon, Walmart, and Kroger alone comprise a majority of grocery delivery (~64% in 2025, per an emarketer FAQ on digital groceries).

[–] troupo 11 hours ago

> increases competition. You are missing something fundamental if you think "2 services becoming one means less competition."

"When there are fewer competitors it means there's increased competition" is quite the take.

> The real competitors to Doordash and Instacart for grocery delivery are not each other.

Together they will have ~80% of the market.

[–] nonethewiser 11 hours ago

>"When there are fewer competitors it means there's increased competition" is quite the take.

I think it's quite obvious that mergers can increase competition. Especially when you read the rest of my comment. Can you steelman what I'm saying?

>Together they will have ~80% of the market.

Are you mixing restaurant delivery (~60% for doordash) with grocery delivery (~20% for instacart)? Those are different market shares.

[–] fzysingularity 12 hours ago

It doesn’t seem like they have monopoly here given how big Uber Eats is?

[–] chomp 12 hours ago

Has nothing to do with monopolies, having the market slowly condense into one mega company does not create competition and results in higher prices for the consumer.

[–] BrokenCogs 12 hours ago

Isn't that what monopolies are known for??

[–] SecretDreams 12 hours ago

Aka monopolies...

[–] pzxc 12 hours ago

You don't have to have an absolute monopoly. Microsoft was punished for anti-competitive actions in the 90s when it bundled its Internet Explorer browser into Windows.

Even though other browsers existed, like Netscape Navigator etc, Microsoft was still found guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and guilty of anti-competitive action, both in the US and elsewhere.

Microsoft was forced to create a version of Windows without IE bundled, and other corrective actions.

[–] throwitaway222 12 hours ago

To this day while I welcome anti-trust legislation, I don't understand how a "free" thing can be anti-consumer. Both Microsoft and Netscape were not "charging" the customer for this product. While it could be argued the product may generated revenue, the purpose of anti-trust in general is to stop something that negatively affects consumers.

Now the food industry would be my best example that needs more anti-trust. All of my organic brands have been bought out by Conagra Brands. There's no competition.

I would also agree that this specific acquisition is not going to be helpful for consumers.

[–] dspillett 11 hours ago

> I don't understand how a "free" thing can be anti-consumer

If it is only free in order to inconvenience competitors in a way that will eventually reduce choice, either giving you undue control of a market or being done with a view to charge later when people have no choice as the competition is broken, or both - that is when free becomes an anti-consumer matter.

It is an issue that you sometimes need to think long term to notice. If you wait for it to be an immediate problem, it is often too late to easily do anything about it.

Your food example is exactly what people feared would happen with IE, and what actually did happen for a long time despite the anti-trust case: client side developments stalled because IE was such a large part of the market and it did not implement anything new because there was no reason for them to. There was not sufficient competition to make it inconvenient for the incumbent to stagnate, so the whole area stagnated somewhat until Chrome came along and stirred things up a bit. MS was in control due to an effective monopoly, the consumer suffered.

[–] throwitaway222 11 hours ago

I think the history actually proves the opposite. There was never a version of Windows that I purchased that required me to download Internet Explorer. In fact on the latest copy of Windows - Edge is still pre-installed. Yet Chrome holds a larger share TODAY. There was absolutely no reason for Microsoft to lose that case.

The second most popular browser now is Safari. Should the justice department come after Apple for including it in the Mac?

[–] interroboink 11 hours ago

> I don't understand how a "free" thing can be anti-consumer.

Not 100% apples-to-apples, but I imagine you've heard cases of "big players" in various industries lowering their prices to the point of selling at a loss, which drives out the small players (Amazon, Wal-Mart come to mind). In the end, only the big player is left, and they are now free to raise prices.

I think it's reasonable to see that initial low-prices (could even be free) period of behavior as anti-competitive, since it may ultimately stifle competition in the long term.

[–] throwitaway222 11 hours ago

I do agree with that. Home Depot has a history of cutting out small lumber yards across the US for charging less for wood. Then when the local lumber yard is out of business, oh suddenly the wood shortage back east is a great reason to raise prices.

But what you're saying is that if a piece of software is popular, free and has no competition, it should be illegal!? And the browser isn't even a great example of that since there are tons of other options! Wireshark is specialty packet sniffing software that has literally no reasonable competition in it's space. It's also free. Should it be banned here?

[–] mtswish 11 hours ago

You should go ahead and read the arguments they lay out. Here is Khan's report on Amazon: https://yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf You can disagree, but they at least make compelling arguments that forces one to think.

[–] gabrielsroka 11 hours ago

Netscape offered Navigator for free for personal use while charging businesses a licensing fee.

[–] throwitaway222 11 hours ago

Isn't that more proof that the consumer won here? Even business consumers? By making IE free, there is no reason to pay Netscape. I'm sorry but this is not an example of a monopoly. Should Wireshark be banned in the United States because it's the best packet sniffer and it's competition is basically 0 right now?

[–] rini17 11 hours ago

IE was not really free. You still had to buy Windows.

[–] throwitaway222 11 hours ago

But at the time no one was buying windows because of IE! It was WORD!

[–] pavel_lishin 12 hours ago

A duopoly isn't great, either.

[–] Buttons840 12 hours ago

Monopolies are not illegal, anti-competitive practices are illegal; there's a subtle difference.

You're right. Duopolies aren't great either and just because two companies are in fierce competition doesn't mean everything is good with the law. Both companies might be engaging in illegal anti-competitive behavior.

[–] throwitaway222 11 hours ago

There is also a skyrocketing chance they are colluding via algorithm.

This needs to be discussed more in the age of AI. RealPage was just the eye-opener. Every industry that should be competing on prices has a cottage industry of "price recommenders" that is de-facto collusion in front of our eyes.

[–] cpuguy83 12 hours ago

It's also the FTC's responsibility to challenge mergers that would substantially reduce competition.

No one is saying the merger is illegal, just that it probably shouldn't be allowed.

[–] Buttons840 12 hours ago

"Illegal" and "shouldn't be allowed" are the same thing when it comes to the government.

If something is legal, the government should allow it.

I am saying that it shouldn't be allowed, because it is not in harmony with the laws, and is therefore illegal.