4 ms·

That's what we hear repeated over and over. But, I don't believe it to be the truth. I think it's far more simple. They're already here and they don't want t

• dredmorbius 9y ago
  "They" could move. But you'd need to convince a lot of "them" to move. And you'd have to coordinate that move to a single second locale. The network effects and low-friction of local contacts are real. Distance is time and time is money. All take energy, infrastructure, and capital. Ironically, the more ephemeral a product, the more concentrated its development, because the one thing you need to work on it is people (including all the support and acilary staff). An earlier example of this was Hollywood. Films can be shot anywhere, and the end product was a few cans of celluloid that could be shipped to theatres. But it was the actors, and cameramen, and catering staff, and carpenters, and electricians, and equipment support, and musicians, and effects people, and .... that were expensive. And who'd clustered in Los Angeles. Factors that did lead to spreading out the industry? Language. And occasionally government regulation limiting the import of American film. But France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India: all developed their own local film industry, of at least some size, in large part because Hollywood couldn't make talking pictures their audiences could understand. (Also: cultural, location, and other factors, but language was a biggie.) So the friction of what language are we going to develop in (as in human language) actually lead to a decentralisation of production. Ironically: better and more efficient technology leads to greater density, not less. Though it's rapidly running up against housing-as-asset as a massive problem.