3 ms·
That's not what rent-seeking means. They're adding value, not manipulating public policy, no regulatory, capture, etc. I think what you're trying to say is tha
by ryanwaggoner 9y ago
That's not what rent-seeking means. They're adding value, not manipulating public policy, no regulatory, capture, etc.
I think what you're trying to say is that they're charging more than you think they should. That's not what rent-seeking means.
These apps are providing value and doing so under a subscription model. If you don't think they provide sufficient value, there are almost always loads of competitors. Additionally, it makes no sense to sell a lot of software under a one-time fee. There are significant ongoing costs for support, maintenance, servers, etc. It makes as much sense as selling one-time fee access to the grocery store.
- tomc1985 9y agoIn many (most, imo) cases the value added is minimal, sometimes added seemingly only to justify the monthly costs. And it is very much rent-seeking. How could you not describe big 5's lobbying activities as conducted at least partially for regulatory capture? Look who is in charge of the FTC and FCC, particularly that one kid that tried to act cool to tech geeks, what's-his-name. And that is not even what I meant by rent seeking. We are seeing a new kind, at least in tech: subjugation of consumers means of production, achieved by carefully dispensing bits through services instead of allowing customers to retain control of them (via un-drm'd media or downloads). The purpose of this change is to create more revenue for the owner.... which is rent-seeking. Similar things have been going on for years with consumer stables... DollarShaveClub's One Wipe Charlies (expensive) to replace toilet paper (cheap), or juicero (expensive) to replace a blender and fruit (cheap). Chemical cleaners (expensive) instead of centuries-old natural techniques (cheap) even when chemicals are inappropriate to the cleaning job. And so on...