>>Some could say that the pre-Facebook blogging era was better, but I don't think those times ever had a chance of growing to encompass regular people. Agree e

>>Some could say that the pre-Facebook blogging era was better, but I don't think those times ever had a chance of growing to encompass regular people. Agree entirely. >>the truth is that the only Android that could become a market standard is the Google Android, and Linux has no chance in hell as long as Microsoft and Apple have money to better tailor (and market) their OSes to end users (regular people and corporations). Well Google Android has a much less entrenched position than Windows did, and it's precisely because it is open source. One can run non-Google Androids that are fully compatible with other Android apps, and Google would never be able to charge for its version for that reason. >>Open source, by its nature, avoids attracting money, and money is exactly how you win mindshare. While that's often the case, there are times where its nonproprietary nature facilitates its adoption. The fact that no one group owns an open source project can be an attractive feature, especially when disparate parties are looking for a common protocol or platform to collaborate through. Cryptocurrency is both open source and attracts money. That's why I think blockchains might succeed against traditional web companies. All-in-all I think our chances of being to solve the market monopoly problem with technology is good given the space of possible solutions. Of course this is just an opinion and I can't prove that it will work.