5 ms·
I imagine the electric companies made similar arguments at the start of the 20th century. > Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a ba
by anexprogrammer 10y ago
I imagine the electric companies made similar arguments at the start of the 20th century.
> Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a basic utility
Agreed. Isn't it more that it becomes so ubiquitous and expected that it starts to be considered a basic utility by the public? In the case of social and IM it's the network effect that matters - where are family and friends.
Once a certain tipping point was reached you'd be hard pushed to find many willing to live without mains water or electric. These days you'd be hard pushed to find many willing to live without internet, social networking, and IM chat. They're becoming utilities, and quotes like from their counsel "well just don't use it, it's optional" ring, for the majority of the public, increasingly hollow.
Just as our definition of essentials, poverty, minimum income and inflation (in the UK at least) have all been adjusted to reflect the internet age and provide for internet connections, mobile phones etc, our defnition of utilities should too.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoI'm doubtful. With that definition, lattes should be made a utility. So should shoes. Tires. A utility is indicated by, requiring so heavy an investment in infrastructure that would be onerous to the public to support duplicates.
- anexprogrammer 10y agoFair point, I was only thinking of things at that scale when writing, so requiring big investment and infrastructure - phone networks, social networks, water, etc.
- xg15 10y agoThe difference is of course the network effect: If I'm not happy with the shoes I'm wearing, there is a huge range of shoes I can buy without any negative consequences for me. Switching messengers or social networks can have the obvious consequences that you lose your network. That way, even if there are plenty of competitors in theory, the lock-in can be the same as with a monopoly.
- tw04 10y agoNot really... If all of my friends buy a Starbucks latte, I'm not forced to also buy a Starbucks latte just to interact with them. I could hang out with them at Starbucks drinking a Caribou latte, or not drink any coffee at all. If all my friends buy Jordans, I don't have to buy a pair of Jordans to join their game of pickup basketball. Heck I don't even need shoes (not recommended but to each his own). If all of my friends choose to use WhatsApp messenger, my options are to not communicate with them at all (a non-starter), or to also use WhatsApp.
- ryandrake 10y agoOr to call them on the phone, talk to them in person, send them an E-mail or letter.. You know, the things we all did in ancient times like 5 years ago?
- tw04 10y agoYes, it's completely reasonable to replace real-time group chat with... a conference call among 6 friends? Hey guys, I know ALL of you chat with WhatsApp, but can we move to email just for me and my concerns around security that you don't care about at all? Seriously... you can make completely unreasonable suggestions until you're blue in the face but it's not going to change reality. There are very real social pressures at play in this discussion. Yes, it turns out peer pressure is a real thing and has a very prominent role in this discussion. Do you really think Facebook would've spent $19* BILLION on WhatsApp if they thought people would be willing to drop it at the first sign of inconvenience? They know they've got lock-in through sheer market adoption of the platform. If they didn't, they would've just stuck with the facebook messenger path they were already heading down.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- type0 10y agoFacebook Safety Check is considered as such utility by fb themselves, would I be able to use it without fb account?