4 ms·

Why is it not ok for tech companies to be big, but a-ok for telecom, oil, banks, law firms, audit firms, and all the other traditional companies to be huge? Th

by tensor 9y ago

Why is it not ok for tech companies to be big, but a-ok for telecom, oil, banks, law firms, audit firms, and all the other traditional companies to be huge? The cynic in me wonders if it's simply "old conservative money holders" being upset about the "new liberal rich." Ever since Trump took power, the media has been beating the "evil tech company" drums loudly and clearly.

modi15 9y ago
> Why is it not ok for tech companies to be big, but a-ok for telecom, oil, banks, law firms, audit firms, and all the other traditional companies to be huge? The thing which makes tech companies different from every other is the 'infrastructure' effect of software and the absence of 'geographical' limits on monopolies. Banks, law firms, audit firms are fundamentally limited by geography. A law firm in New York will find it very hard to service clients in San Francisco without having employees there. Tech firms arent 'boxed' in by these limits, which are preset for most traditional businesses, thereby greatly expands their ability to become monopolies and strangle competition. The other advantage that tech companies have is the fundamentally additive nature of software. Microsoft made a very good OS few decades back, but its ability to keep releasing a competitive OS builds on the work piled on by decades of engineering. It is simply impossible for a startup to release another version of an OS which can compete with Microsoft Windows. However, if we were to break up Windows into pieces, it opens up the possiblity for a new startup to innovate on a part of the OS and buy existing pieces from the vendors of each part to ship a new offering.
- stale2002 9y ago
  I mean, what you are effectively arguing is that Microsoft's OS is so freaking awesome and amazing and good for consumers, that no other competitor is able to provide value to consumers as much as microsoft is. And your solution is effectively to make Microsoft's products worse, so that a different, lower quality product is able to compete. What about instead of that, we do the thing that helps consumers, instead of hurting them?
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    The error in your assumption is that windows wins because its "so freaking awesome" and not because of secondary effects that microsoft has imposed on the market via its ability to effectively force adoption of stuff.
- tensor 9y ago
  All of the industries I've mentioned are already international. Law firms have offices around the world and routinely export work. Audit firms too. Your arguments about momentum of software also equally play to the big law firms and audit firms, if not more so. These firms have been gorillas for a very long time. For perspective, PWC is the result of a merger between two large audit firms founded in 1949 and 1954 respectively. Microsoft was founded in 1975. PWC is a worldwide company employing 236k employees. Microsoft only employs 124k. Admittedly Microsoft has a revenue of ~90 billion vs PWCs mere 37.7 billion. But I'm not seeing why one is fundamentally different than the other.
saas_co_de 9y ago
But it is the anti-trump media (NY Times, Guardian, etc) that are beating the drums the hardest. What they understand is that these companies only care about money. When Democrats were in power they were happy to help the Democrats in exchange for favors. Now the Republican are in power they will be happy to help the Republicans in exchange for favors. Alphabet is even willing to make someone else CEO because Eric Schmidt was too closely tied to the other side. That shows everyone how friendly they are willing to be.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  I think most people dont understand that corporations are amoral entities.
flamedoge 9y ago
Theoretically, there is draw towards big companies offering a package of solution rather than individual pieces. Small companies offering superior piece doesn't get rewarded because of the package-offering-draw effect which rewards suboptimality and pulls towards monopoly. We want competition for getting the best and no monopoly for retaining power balance between customers and companies.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"Why is it not ok for tech companies to be big, but a-ok for telecom, oil, banks, law firms, audit firms, and all the other traditional companies to be huge?" It's not OK for for telecom, oil and banks. I don't hear anybody saying that nor do I believe it is a popular opinion. >"Ever since Trump took power, the media has been beating the "evil tech company" drums loudly and clearly." You realize there's a tangent between the Trump election and how social media was used during the election right?
wfo 9y ago
It is not OK for these companies to be huge either. Companies, no matter how large are always dictatorially controlled by a tiny group of ultrawealthy oligarchs. Large company == massive concentrated power with zero oversight or democratic input which is always dangerous and bad. Tech companies are worse because they control the tools we use to communicate and think: this unchecked power can exert massive influence over our minds and thoughts.

by tensor 9y ago

modi15 9y ago

> Why is it not ok for tech companies to be big, but a-ok for telecom, oil, banks, law firms, audit firms, and all the other traditional companies to be huge? The thing which makes tech companies different from every other is the 'infrastructure' effect of software and the absence of 'geographical' limits on monopolies. Banks, law firms, audit firms are fundamentally limited by geography. A law firm in New York will find it very hard to service clients in San Francisco without having employees there. Tech firms arent 'boxed' in by these limits, which are preset for most traditional businesses, thereby greatly expands their ability to become monopolies and strangle competition. The other advantage that tech companies have is the fundamentally additive nature of software. Microsoft made a very good OS few decades back, but its ability to keep releasing a competitive OS builds on the work piled on by decades of engineering. It is simply impossible for a startup to release another version of an OS which can compete with Microsoft Windows. However, if we were to break up Windows into pieces, it opens up the possiblity for a new startup to innovate on a part of the OS and buy existing pieces from the vendors of each part to ship a new offering.

stale2002 9y ago
I mean, what you are effectively arguing is that Microsoft's OS is so freaking awesome and amazing and good for consumers, that no other competitor is able to provide value to consumers as much as microsoft is. And your solution is effectively to make Microsoft's products worse, so that a different, lower quality product is able to compete. What about instead of that, we do the thing that helps consumers, instead of hurting them?
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  The error in your assumption is that windows wins because its "so freaking awesome" and not because of secondary effects that microsoft has imposed on the market via its ability to effectively force adoption of stuff.
tensor 9y ago
All of the industries I've mentioned are already international. Law firms have offices around the world and routinely export work. Audit firms too. Your arguments about momentum of software also equally play to the big law firms and audit firms, if not more so. These firms have been gorillas for a very long time. For perspective, PWC is the result of a merger between two large audit firms founded in 1949 and 1954 respectively. Microsoft was founded in 1975. PWC is a worldwide company employing 236k employees. Microsoft only employs 124k. Admittedly Microsoft has a revenue of ~90 billion vs PWCs mere 37.7 billion. But I'm not seeing why one is fundamentally different than the other.

saas_co_de 9y ago

But it is the anti-trump media (NY Times, Guardian, etc) that are beating the drums the hardest. What they understand is that these companies only care about money. When Democrats were in power they were happy to help the Democrats in exchange for favors. Now the Republican are in power they will be happy to help the Republicans in exchange for favors. Alphabet is even willing to make someone else CEO because Eric Schmidt was too closely tied to the other side. That shows everyone how friendly they are willing to be.

StreamBright 9y ago
I think most people dont understand that corporations are amoral entities.

flamedoge 9y ago

Theoretically, there is draw towards big companies offering a package of solution rather than individual pieces. Small companies offering superior piece doesn't get rewarded because of the package-offering-draw effect which rewards suboptimality and pulls towards monopoly. We want competition for getting the best and no monopoly for retaining power balance between customers and companies.

bogomipz 9y ago

>"Why is it not ok for tech companies to be big, but a-ok for telecom, oil, banks, law firms, audit firms, and all the other traditional companies to be huge?" It's not OK for for telecom, oil and banks. I don't hear anybody saying that nor do I believe it is a popular opinion. >"Ever since Trump took power, the media has been beating the "evil tech company" drums loudly and clearly." You realize there's a tangent between the Trump election and how social media was used during the election right?

wfo 9y ago

It is not OK for these companies to be huge either. Companies, no matter how large are always dictatorially controlled by a tiny group of ultrawealthy oligarchs. Large company == massive concentrated power with zero oversight or democratic input which is always dangerous and bad. Tech companies are worse because they control the tools we use to communicate and think: this unchecked power can exert massive influence over our minds and thoughts.