5 ms·

> One of the awkward failures of capitalism, I guess. No, it's actually a feature: competition. With a single product in every category it would be impossible

> One of the awkward failures of capitalism, I guess. No, it's actually a feature: competition. With a single product in every category it would be impossible to have diversity of ideas being tested and competing. It is the same with evolution.

taurath 9y ago
Here’s the thing though - if everyone shared data, they could compete on the UX. Nobody says that pharmaceutical companies aren’t competitive on the end product, but they have a shared data set in the form of all the university research. Of course they get their own data, but being “free” to not have to do basic research themselves means they can put more resources towards the end product than data gathering
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > if everyone shared data, they could compete on the UX Why? Google seems to have a gigantic advantage in data, which is highly valuable. Why would they give up that advantage, if they spent millions, if not billions, of dollars creating it? And what would be the incentive to create such data if there's no economic gain from it?
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    >And what would be the incentive to create such data if there's no economic gain from it? // If the data is useful then there is an _economic_ gain, just not necessarily a profit. If you meant "if there's no profit from it" then it was spoken like a true capitalist. Why do anything if you're not going to be paid for it. Why visit your mum in hospital? Why give money to the homeless for food? Why create software for others? Why teach a child a fun game? Love, altruism, interest, expediency, fun, ... and a million other reasons besides.
    - tomrod 9y ago
      All of these items fit into the rational expectations and utility maximization framework.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      ?? Would you invest your retirement savings into a company that plans to return no profit by mapping the world and releasing the data for free? I thought so.
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        Well, I'd invest my time. I've worked on OSM, AFAIK I've got nothing back from having done so other than learning a little about maps. Your position is flawed, because you're focussing on a single element of a social system. If I invest in mapping, it doesn't remove resources, it improves them for everyone. Without the waste of resources of solely profit-driven activity then we have ample resources to meet basic needs and develop technologically too. No, I don't yet know how such a system can work. I've been working on it ... transition is the biggest problem and the one I've been addressing. At some point I hope it will benefit us all as a species - probably at a financial loss to me and many others.
        ucaetano 9y ago
        "Time from volunteers" isn't enough to buy satellite images, cars with cameras, airplanes with cameras, etc. We're not talking about a bunch of people pitching in some time as they feel about doing it, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars (probably more) spent on this. But, as you wouldn't invest your retirement funds in such a company, why would you expect others to do so?
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        You're missing the point, I'd guess on purpose. We, humans, currently spend the resources on those things through the medium of fiat currency. Remove the necessity for profit, the need to pay a lot of people in that system incredibly more than they require - take a couple of dozen 8-figure mansions, a few 9-figure yachts, several hundred 6-figure cars, gold-plated taps, diamond-encrusted tiaras, etc., etc., and the resources targeted at the problem of producing maps go much further. And there's no reason not to have a competitive element, you don't need profit to create competition. It's not spending people's retirement, it's spending the same resources we spend now, just not mediated in the same manner and without the waste of 40% spend on advertising (plucked that number out my ass but a few years ago pharma was spending more on advertising than on R&D) and without allowing controlling elements to steal all the output for personal gain. So, I'd like to spend the equivalent resources we do now, but with saving on profit, over-paying wages, and de-duplication of effort. That gives much more resources applied to the actual task without touching pensions (which of course I'd like to see have the same effect). The problem, is that moving to such an economic system requires the most greedy, most powerful, to be usurped. Humans are greedy (myself included), that leads us to waste so, so, much of our resources. Why do you think a system where people choose the collective good (having all their needs met) - "volunteering" - rather than personal financial gain can't produce satellites, or any other good/technology we now produce?
  - taurath 9y ago
    I’m not saying it’s wise for them to give up their advantage - more lamenting that there doesn’t seem to exist an organizational structure that could provide the underlying data as raw resources without a profit motive; we have to hope that the incentives for both the business and the user align (which in maps basic case it does, but with so much user tracking happening for ads I wonder how long until the incentives will stay aligned).
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > an organizational structure that could provide the underlying data as raw resources without a profit motive And who would do that?
- ineedasername 9y ago
  Isn't it just as wasteful to have twice as many designers & programmers & market researchers & behavioral researchers working on two competing UX systems?
  - taurath 9y ago
    If they’re going to design program and research to make the same thing while competing then sure it is. Coke and Pepsi have been around for a long time, despite sharing the same set of ingredients that any other soda maker can use. Their value comes from marketing and distribution systems.
    - ineedasername 9y ago
      Well, precisely. And what value is added by massive resources devoted to convincing people to to drink one of two nearly identical products? How much effort might be saved if two nearly identical bottling & distribution systems could instead collaborate and reduce the waste incurred? By stating "collaborate on X so that we can focus or compete on Y" merely adds one more turtle to to the the stack. You need to take a step back and ask these sorts of questions: Does competition solve any problems that cooperation does not, or solve them better? Do problems arise in competition that would not under cooperation? Is there a 3rd alternative? What about competition that pursues what's best for everyone, even if it is worse for the individual company pursuing it? (arguably not possible when corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the company, which presents a conflict)
paloaltokid 9y ago
Not so fast! Competition only makes sense if you’re competing on the right things. Railroads should compete on service, quality and price. They should not compete by laying down parallel tracks side by side. Some things should be shared in common and competitive services built on top.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Some things should be shared in common and competitive services built on top. Only when the existence of one incumbent inhibits the entrance of new ones, like physical infrastructure and natural monopolies. As you can see, there is an abundance of mapping services. So yeah, competition is working great here.
  - paloaltokid 9y ago
    That is 100% just your opinion. :) Same as me.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      No, it's economics and game theory. In situations where most of the cost to set up a business is upfront, the marginal cost is very low and you can't "move" the immobilized capital after (like power lines, train lines, water main, fiber optic networks), there is a massive advantage to the first entrant (the "incumbent"). In these cases, there are massive barriers for new entrants: any new entrant would have to make an immense investment with zero chance of making it back, as the incumbent could just retaliate by lowering prices and driving the entrant out of business. This situation means that there is little chance that competition will happen, so it is the best interest of society to mandate the operation of the infrastructure from the service. That's what happens with local-loop unbundling, or when the ownership and operation of the rail infrastructure must be separate from the ownership and operation of train lines and services. That is not the case with mapping the world: anyone can do it, and having an incumbent doesn't block new entrants. There were already many incumbents when Google entered the mapping business, and there's still plenty of competition. Therefore, there is no reason to mandate separation. So no, it isn't "100% just your opinion". But I appreciate the Lebowski reference :)

taurath 9y ago

Here’s the thing though - if everyone shared data, they could compete on the UX. Nobody says that pharmaceutical companies aren’t competitive on the end product, but they have a shared data set in the form of all the university research. Of course they get their own data, but being “free” to not have to do basic research themselves means they can put more resources towards the end product than data gathering

ucaetano 9y ago
> if everyone shared data, they could compete on the UX Why? Google seems to have a gigantic advantage in data, which is highly valuable. Why would they give up that advantage, if they spent millions, if not billions, of dollars creating it? And what would be the incentive to create such data if there's no economic gain from it?
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  >And what would be the incentive to create such data if there's no economic gain from it? // If the data is useful then there is an _economic_ gain, just not necessarily a profit. If you meant "if there's no profit from it" then it was spoken like a true capitalist. Why do anything if you're not going to be paid for it. Why visit your mum in hospital? Why give money to the homeless for food? Why create software for others? Why teach a child a fun game? Love, altruism, interest, expediency, fun, ... and a million other reasons besides.
  - tomrod 9y ago
    All of these items fit into the rational expectations and utility maximization framework.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    ?? Would you invest your retirement savings into a company that plans to return no profit by mapping the world and releasing the data for free? I thought so.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Well, I'd invest my time. I've worked on OSM, AFAIK I've got nothing back from having done so other than learning a little about maps. Your position is flawed, because you're focussing on a single element of a social system. If I invest in mapping, it doesn't remove resources, it improves them for everyone. Without the waste of resources of solely profit-driven activity then we have ample resources to meet basic needs and develop technologically too. No, I don't yet know how such a system can work. I've been working on it ... transition is the biggest problem and the one I've been addressing. At some point I hope it will benefit us all as a species - probably at a financial loss to me and many others.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        "Time from volunteers" isn't enough to buy satellite images, cars with cameras, airplanes with cameras, etc. We're not talking about a bunch of people pitching in some time as they feel about doing it, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars (probably more) spent on this. But, as you wouldn't invest your retirement funds in such a company, why would you expect others to do so?
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        You're missing the point, I'd guess on purpose. We, humans, currently spend the resources on those things through the medium of fiat currency. Remove the necessity for profit, the need to pay a lot of people in that system incredibly more than they require - take a couple of dozen 8-figure mansions, a few 9-figure yachts, several hundred 6-figure cars, gold-plated taps, diamond-encrusted tiaras, etc., etc., and the resources targeted at the problem of producing maps go much further. And there's no reason not to have a competitive element, you don't need profit to create competition. It's not spending people's retirement, it's spending the same resources we spend now, just not mediated in the same manner and without the waste of 40% spend on advertising (plucked that number out my ass but a few years ago pharma was spending more on advertising than on R&D) and without allowing controlling elements to steal all the output for personal gain. So, I'd like to spend the equivalent resources we do now, but with saving on profit, over-paying wages, and de-duplication of effort. That gives much more resources applied to the actual task without touching pensions (which of course I'd like to see have the same effect). The problem, is that moving to such an economic system requires the most greedy, most powerful, to be usurped. Humans are greedy (myself included), that leads us to waste so, so, much of our resources. Why do you think a system where people choose the collective good (having all their needs met) - "volunteering" - rather than personal financial gain can't produce satellites, or any other good/technology we now produce?
- taurath 9y ago
  I’m not saying it’s wise for them to give up their advantage - more lamenting that there doesn’t seem to exist an organizational structure that could provide the underlying data as raw resources without a profit motive; we have to hope that the incentives for both the business and the user align (which in maps basic case it does, but with so much user tracking happening for ads I wonder how long until the incentives will stay aligned).
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > an organizational structure that could provide the underlying data as raw resources without a profit motive And who would do that?
ineedasername 9y ago
Isn't it just as wasteful to have twice as many designers & programmers & market researchers & behavioral researchers working on two competing UX systems?
- taurath 9y ago
  If they’re going to design program and research to make the same thing while competing then sure it is. Coke and Pepsi have been around for a long time, despite sharing the same set of ingredients that any other soda maker can use. Their value comes from marketing and distribution systems.
  - ineedasername 9y ago
    Well, precisely. And what value is added by massive resources devoted to convincing people to to drink one of two nearly identical products? How much effort might be saved if two nearly identical bottling & distribution systems could instead collaborate and reduce the waste incurred? By stating "collaborate on X so that we can focus or compete on Y" merely adds one more turtle to to the the stack. You need to take a step back and ask these sorts of questions: Does competition solve any problems that cooperation does not, or solve them better? Do problems arise in competition that would not under cooperation? Is there a 3rd alternative? What about competition that pursues what's best for everyone, even if it is worse for the individual company pursuing it? (arguably not possible when corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the company, which presents a conflict)

paloaltokid 9y ago

Not so fast! Competition only makes sense if you’re competing on the right things. Railroads should compete on service, quality and price. They should not compete by laying down parallel tracks side by side. Some things should be shared in common and competitive services built on top.

ucaetano 9y ago
> Some things should be shared in common and competitive services built on top. Only when the existence of one incumbent inhibits the entrance of new ones, like physical infrastructure and natural monopolies. As you can see, there is an abundance of mapping services. So yeah, competition is working great here.
- paloaltokid 9y ago
  That is 100% just your opinion. :) Same as me.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    No, it's economics and game theory. In situations where most of the cost to set up a business is upfront, the marginal cost is very low and you can't "move" the immobilized capital after (like power lines, train lines, water main, fiber optic networks), there is a massive advantage to the first entrant (the "incumbent"). In these cases, there are massive barriers for new entrants: any new entrant would have to make an immense investment with zero chance of making it back, as the incumbent could just retaliate by lowering prices and driving the entrant out of business. This situation means that there is little chance that competition will happen, so it is the best interest of society to mandate the operation of the infrastructure from the service. That's what happens with local-loop unbundling, or when the ownership and operation of the rail infrastructure must be separate from the ownership and operation of train lines and services. That is not the case with mapping the world: anyone can do it, and having an incumbent doesn't block new entrants. There were already many incumbents when Google entered the mapping business, and there's still plenty of competition. Therefore, there is no reason to mandate separation. So no, it isn't "100% just your opinion". But I appreciate the Lebowski reference :)