3 ms·

>The only competitive strategy that seems to be working at the moment is having a vertical that is sufficiently different from the incumbent that you can attrac

>The only competitive strategy that seems to be working at the moment is having a vertical that is sufficiently different from the incumbent that you can attract existing users of the incumbent's network to use yours in parallel. How is this any different than Coke building up a trusted brand over 100 years? If you want to compete in the drinks market, you need to find a different vertical (sports, energy, fruit, health, etc.) and build up your own trusted brand. I think we'll see the government slowly coming around to endorse/oversee/standardize digital trust networks as they always have through the FTC, FDA, FCC, etc. They've already started with Title II of HIPAA in an attempt to regulate how data flows in the healthcare system so that patients can trust healthcare providers. But do we really need to oversee/nationalize a social network/content aggregator such as Linkedin or Facebook?

CaptainZapp 11y ago
How is this any different than Coke building up a trusted brand over 100 years? Well, I can always quaff a Pepsi, quite irrespective of what my peers chose to drink. It doesn't work quite as well to use a different, say, social media platform, when all my friends are on Facebook.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  Pepsi is to Coke as Google + is to Facebook. They both have overlapping networks of drinkers/users that are not mutually exclusive. Facebook was able to get to market first and provide a tastier product. But the free market supports both products/networks. And there is more room for disruption in the Facebook/Google Plus space than the soft drinks market due to much shorter product lifecycles. Myspace lasted 5 years. Facebook will last longer due to strong tie-ins w/ businesses, schools, organizations, etc. but I, like many of my friends, have dropped it and are keeping an eye out for the next thing. The issue w/ Uber and Lyft is one of employment laws rather than regulated trust networks. If we changed the laws/prosecuted the companies they would have to raise prices due to higher employee wages/compensation which would have the ultimate effect of weakening the network as people looked at taxis and public transport as viable alternatives. So ultimately my point is that we should look at how attractive the service and why. In the case of Uber its because they are able to exploit an oversupply of low skill labor to bring prices down. This combined w/ advertising and promotions has created a strong network. Not sure it's the govs job to step in and weaken/nationalize that network. Perhaps regulate the employee/employer relationship, but this is nothing new.
- kedean 11y ago
  Not necessarily. Pepsi and Coke have both built quite legal relationships with a number of institutions like universities and fast food chains with the agreement that competitor products are not served. My university was a "pepsi campus", you couldn't buy coke products anywhere on campus. This is why people have to ask "do you serve coke or pepsi?" at restaurants. Of course this has far fewer effects that social network tie-ins, but its not a new idea.
  - charlesarthur 11y ago
    "This is why people have to ask "do you serve coke or pepsi?" at restaurants." OT, but this is why news anchors have to say "the obesity rate in the US has risen to its highest level ever, scientists reported today."
    - hsod 11y ago
      Why? Because people drink soda at restaurants?
mhw 11y ago
> How is this any different than Coke building up a trusted brand over 100 years? If you want to compete in the drinks market, you need to find a different vertical (sports, energy, fruit, health, etc.) and build up your own trusted brand. The trust relationship with a brand is a direct and personal relationship, and people can change their idea of trust at little cost. People can choose to drink Pepsi without having to convince their friends/business associates/renters/drivers/etc to also drink Pepsi. The same is not true in a market which is built on a network of trust. If I want to rent out space in my car to people I go to the provider with the biggest trust network because that's the biggest market. I can choose to join a new startup's competitor network as well, but there's little I (or the startup) can do to convince everyone else on the competitor's network to join too. And, crucially, if the people I want to offer rides to aren't on the competitor's network, my participation in the network has less value. > But do we really need to oversee/nationalize a social network/content aggregator such as Linkedin or Facebook? It depends how comfortable we all are with the private monopolies that seem to be the outcome of the way the economics play out at the moment. If everyone is happy being a freelancer working for multiple multinational trust network monopolies, then maybe not. But if the relationship between the individual and the network are exploitative (some recent articles about the reality of driving for Uber take this line) then I can imagine people calling for some kind of regulation to break the monopoly and restore some kind of competition in the market. At least if there are multiple Uber's operating on a shared trust network, drivers (and passengers) have some choice over where they take their business, for example.

CaptainZapp 11y ago

How is this any different than Coke building up a trusted brand over 100 years? Well, I can always quaff a Pepsi, quite irrespective of what my peers chose to drink. It doesn't work quite as well to use a different, say, social media platform, when all my friends are on Facebook.

roymurdock 11y ago
Pepsi is to Coke as Google + is to Facebook. They both have overlapping networks of drinkers/users that are not mutually exclusive. Facebook was able to get to market first and provide a tastier product. But the free market supports both products/networks. And there is more room for disruption in the Facebook/Google Plus space than the soft drinks market due to much shorter product lifecycles. Myspace lasted 5 years. Facebook will last longer due to strong tie-ins w/ businesses, schools, organizations, etc. but I, like many of my friends, have dropped it and are keeping an eye out for the next thing. The issue w/ Uber and Lyft is one of employment laws rather than regulated trust networks. If we changed the laws/prosecuted the companies they would have to raise prices due to higher employee wages/compensation which would have the ultimate effect of weakening the network as people looked at taxis and public transport as viable alternatives. So ultimately my point is that we should look at how attractive the service and why. In the case of Uber its because they are able to exploit an oversupply of low skill labor to bring prices down. This combined w/ advertising and promotions has created a strong network. Not sure it's the govs job to step in and weaken/nationalize that network. Perhaps regulate the employee/employer relationship, but this is nothing new.
kedean 11y ago
Not necessarily. Pepsi and Coke have both built quite legal relationships with a number of institutions like universities and fast food chains with the agreement that competitor products are not served. My university was a "pepsi campus", you couldn't buy coke products anywhere on campus. This is why people have to ask "do you serve coke or pepsi?" at restaurants. Of course this has far fewer effects that social network tie-ins, but its not a new idea.
- charlesarthur 11y ago
  "This is why people have to ask "do you serve coke or pepsi?" at restaurants." OT, but this is why news anchors have to say "the obesity rate in the US has risen to its highest level ever, scientists reported today."
  - hsod 11y ago
    Why? Because people drink soda at restaurants?

mhw 11y ago

> How is this any different than Coke building up a trusted brand over 100 years? If you want to compete in the drinks market, you need to find a different vertical (sports, energy, fruit, health, etc.) and build up your own trusted brand. The trust relationship with a brand is a direct and personal relationship, and people can change their idea of trust at little cost. People can choose to drink Pepsi without having to convince their friends/business associates/renters/drivers/etc to also drink Pepsi. The same is not true in a market which is built on a network of trust. If I want to rent out space in my car to people I go to the provider with the biggest trust network because that's the biggest market. I can choose to join a new startup's competitor network as well, but there's little I (or the startup) can do to convince everyone else on the competitor's network to join too. And, crucially, if the people I want to offer rides to aren't on the competitor's network, my participation in the network has less value. > But do we really need to oversee/nationalize a social network/content aggregator such as Linkedin or Facebook? It depends how comfortable we all are with the private monopolies that seem to be the outcome of the way the economics play out at the moment. If everyone is happy being a freelancer working for multiple multinational trust network monopolies, then maybe not. But if the relationship between the individual and the network are exploitative (some recent articles about the reality of driving for Uber take this line) then I can imagine people calling for some kind of regulation to break the monopoly and restore some kind of competition in the market. At least if there are multiple Uber's operating on a shared trust network, drivers (and passengers) have some choice over where they take their business, for example.