3 ms·

Peter Thiel has made similar remarks. He said that IT has been only area to see major progress in recent decades, in contrast to e.g. transportation, because it

by Buldak 8y ago

Peter Thiel has made similar remarks. He said that IT has been only area to see major progress in recent decades, in contrast to e.g. transportation, because it is relatively unregulated. (Hence Twitter rather than flying cars.) Of course, Thiel also holds the view that monopolies are often a good thing.

pdonis 8y ago
> Thiel also holds the view that monopolies are often a good thing. I spotted this (IMO badly mistaken) view of his when he first came out with it quite a while back: http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/monopoly-money.html http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/monopoly-money.html
losteric 8y ago
Software is unlike any prior field because it's so... clean. Energy, agriculture, transportation - all built on the unintuitive building blocks of physics, and our approximate understanding of the universe. The clean abstraction layers and separation of concerns in IT is unparalleled, with powerful positive feedback begetting further innovations. Applying advances to other fields also grew economies of scale rapidly, supporting innovation while barriers to entry were low. We're now approaching the end to low-hanging fruit and maturing into the consolidation phase, as further innovation requires greater capital and time commitment.
- tjr225 8y ago
  just because software exists on layer(s) of abstraction means nothing. It still requires hardware to run on - and still adheres to the laws of physics. I don't take much stock in your clean argument at all.
- jungler 8y ago
  That makes it like finance, then: good at hiding the bodies.
adrianN 8y ago
I'm sure that it's all the lack of regulation and not the fact that there wasn't any software more than a few decades ago whereas cars and planes are twice as old as electronic computers.
pjscott 8y ago
Thiel's monopoly comments seem to provoke a lot of confusion; they make more sense if you replace the word "monopoly" with "a position in the market such that customers are willing to pay significantly more for what you sell than for their best available alternative." Some examples: * Apple is able to charge a premium on iPhones relative to the best non-Apple alternatives because a lot of people are willing to pay it. (Do they have a monopoly on smartphones? Definitely not; there are loads of companies selling good phones. But they have a monopoly on their smartphones.) * Fast food joints are forced into heated low-margin competition with each other because they're pretty interchangeable. If McDonald's starts charging too much, people will just shrug and buy basically the same food from Burger King. * Classic monopolies are extreme cases. At one point if you wanted telephone service in the US you either paid whatever AT&T was charging or you didn't get telephone service. When people hear Thiel's comments they tend to think of classic monopolies, but most of the examples he gives are of companies that have plenty of competitors -- and a durable advantage that they can use to maintain decent profits margins without customers jumping ship.
- Deganta 8y ago
  There are loads of products that I would consider classical monopolies in tech. E.g. Youtube/Facebook/Android/Whatsapp. Sure you could use one of the alternatives, but then you won't get the content/people/apps/audience/... that are on those large platforms, which makes them basically useless.
tengbretson 8y ago
For what it's worth, if a private company held a monopoly on the roads in this country I would bet dollars to donuts that we'd have flying cars by now.
- fingerlocks 8y ago
  I think about this often. I imagine self-driving cars built on 30 year old tech in which the road drives the car via curbside sensors (much easier problem to solve). I daydream about service reps walking through bumper-to-bumper traffic handing out coupons and apologizing for the unexpected delays. Pay to drive the premium roads when you’re in a rush, or take the discount lanes with advertising printed along the roadway. We could have quiet, porous asphalt with better water absorbtion. So many fantasies, I digress.

by Buldak 8y ago

pdonis 8y ago

> Thiel also holds the view that monopolies are often a good thing. I spotted this (IMO badly mistaken) view of his when he first came out with it quite a while back: http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/monopoly-money.html http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/monopoly-money.html

losteric 8y ago

Software is unlike any prior field because it's so... clean. Energy, agriculture, transportation - all built on the unintuitive building blocks of physics, and our approximate understanding of the universe. The clean abstraction layers and separation of concerns in IT is unparalleled, with powerful positive feedback begetting further innovations. Applying advances to other fields also grew economies of scale rapidly, supporting innovation while barriers to entry were low. We're now approaching the end to low-hanging fruit and maturing into the consolidation phase, as further innovation requires greater capital and time commitment.

tjr225 8y ago
just because software exists on layer(s) of abstraction means nothing. It still requires hardware to run on - and still adheres to the laws of physics. I don't take much stock in your clean argument at all.
jungler 8y ago
That makes it like finance, then: good at hiding the bodies.

adrianN 8y ago

I'm sure that it's all the lack of regulation and not the fact that there wasn't any software more than a few decades ago whereas cars and planes are twice as old as electronic computers.

pjscott 8y ago

Thiel's monopoly comments seem to provoke a lot of confusion; they make more sense if you replace the word "monopoly" with "a position in the market such that customers are willing to pay significantly more for what you sell than for their best available alternative." Some examples: * Apple is able to charge a premium on iPhones relative to the best non-Apple alternatives because a lot of people are willing to pay it. (Do they have a monopoly on smartphones? Definitely not; there are loads of companies selling good phones. But they have a monopoly on their smartphones.) * Fast food joints are forced into heated low-margin competition with each other because they're pretty interchangeable. If McDonald's starts charging too much, people will just shrug and buy basically the same food from Burger King. * Classic monopolies are extreme cases. At one point if you wanted telephone service in the US you either paid whatever AT&T was charging or you didn't get telephone service. When people hear Thiel's comments they tend to think of classic monopolies, but most of the examples he gives are of companies that have plenty of competitors -- and a durable advantage that they can use to maintain decent profits margins without customers jumping ship.

Deganta 8y ago
There are loads of products that I would consider classical monopolies in tech. E.g. Youtube/Facebook/Android/Whatsapp. Sure you could use one of the alternatives, but then you won't get the content/people/apps/audience/... that are on those large platforms, which makes them basically useless.

tengbretson 8y ago

For what it's worth, if a private company held a monopoly on the roads in this country I would bet dollars to donuts that we'd have flying cars by now.

fingerlocks 8y ago
I think about this often. I imagine self-driving cars built on 30 year old tech in which the road drives the car via curbside sensors (much easier problem to solve). I daydream about service reps walking through bumper-to-bumper traffic handing out coupons and apologizing for the unexpected delays. Pay to drive the premium roads when you’re in a rush, or take the discount lanes with advertising printed along the roadway. We could have quiet, porous asphalt with better water absorbtion. So many fantasies, I digress.