3 ms·

> Nobody is requiring you to use 12 apps. The point is that there are 12 (and actually many more) apps that people could choice if they were in any way unhappy

> Nobody is requiring you to use 12 apps. The point is that there are 12 (and actually many more) apps that people could choice if they were in any way unhappy with their current choice. I can only make that choice for myself, if my family and peers are on none of these apps, then what gain will I get from switching to them? > You can not expect your definition of monopoly to be 'any costumer must be able to immediately switch service without any transaction cost on any of the many, many application any company provides'. I didn't define any monopoly at all, I'm merely pointing out that there's something to be said about keeping it simple and "centralized" with certain things. This is also the same reason why Facebook is one hand good (one centralized place to handle all your online social interactions) but also bad (with that comes a lot of influence). Why not look for solutions where we still have the advantage of aggregation, without the disadvantage of being dependent on a single party?

nickik 9y ago
You can't just expect your own decision to change the market. There are of course network effects and eventually you have to make a choice if you want to support all clients and thus all people or if you don't want to do that then you have to make choices. The point is that there are many networks and there is lots of competition on every level and as a costumer you have the choice how to organise your live. > I didn't define any monopoly at all, I'm merely pointing out that there's something to be said about keeping it simple and "centralized" with certain things. I agree, if the market is relativly free and a dominant player emerges, it is usually an efficent result, even if many people are not very happy. That is why many free-market economist don't agree with the idea that anti-trust law is needed to prevent the centralisation that marx proclaimed and many modern progressive economists defend in new ways. So I'm quite ok with one player, like Whatsapp, dominating for a time. For myself however, I dislike centralisation in fundamental infrastructure, so I make the personal choice to also have Signal, Matrix and many other chats. Depending on what group of friends I use a different app. So we need to be carful with what are your personal choices and interest, and what are our acceptable market outcomes. Many people have a much to narrow view about how the market outcome 'should' look based on their assumtion of cost (typical example is transportation threw centralised nodes that many people think 'make no sense').

nickik 9y ago

You can't just expect your own decision to change the market. There are of course network effects and eventually you have to make a choice if you want to support all clients and thus all people or if you don't want to do that then you have to make choices. The point is that there are many networks and there is lots of competition on every level and as a costumer you have the choice how to organise your live. > I didn't define any monopoly at all, I'm merely pointing out that there's something to be said about keeping it simple and "centralized" with certain things. I agree, if the market is relativly free and a dominant player emerges, it is usually an efficent result, even if many people are not very happy. That is why many free-market economist don't agree with the idea that anti-trust law is needed to prevent the centralisation that marx proclaimed and many modern progressive economists defend in new ways. So I'm quite ok with one player, like Whatsapp, dominating for a time. For myself however, I dislike centralisation in fundamental infrastructure, so I make the personal choice to also have Signal, Matrix and many other chats. Depending on what group of friends I use a different app. So we need to be carful with what are your personal choices and interest, and what are our acceptable market outcomes. Many people have a much to narrow view about how the market outcome 'should' look based on their assumtion of cost (typical example is transportation threw centralised nodes that many people think 'make no sense').