3 ms·

And the tool the new monopolists are using? The browser. Somebody needs to redesign the browser so that it becomes vendor agnostic. That is, if I'm doing a sea

And the tool the new monopolists are using? The browser. Somebody needs to redesign the browser so that it becomes vendor agnostic. That is, if I'm doing a search, I shouldn't see a brand or care who is providing me the results. All I care about is the quality of the results. Same goes for reading articles and buying things. Take the branding out of the web, and you'll kill the monopolies. (Yes, it would wreak havoc on the entire internet business model, but I have the magic wand, and I'm prepared to use it) Is there some reason we have to have brands? Can't all the things we do and places we go be put into a configuration file somewhere and managed automatically?

mattmanser 16y ago
This has nothing to do with the browser. This has to do with network effects.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Your reply looks correct but incomplete. Yes, the immediate dominance has to do with networking effects. But the network effects are all based on the branding, and the browser delivers the branding along with the content. Without the branding the network effects are negligible. People use Google because it says "Google" on the page. People go to Facebook because their friends are there. None of the results they want -- search results or chatting-updating friends, has anything to do with the underlying companies involved, although it has everything to do with the network effect, as you point out. To demonstrate, let's suppose all of my 300 friends all used different social networking software. If somebody kept a configuration file that allowed my new browser to access their information in real time and assimilate it for me in one corporate-free spot, I could still have the networking experience of being with my friends -- say picking out a new movie to rent -- without the branding having to be part of the networking effect.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    It's a trivial Greasemonkey script to suppress all the chrome on a search result page. If you really care that much, you or anyone else could whip one up and share it with the world. I suspect very few people would use it, because I suspect that many people use a search engine because of the branding. It makes them feel comfortable and safe; they know that this search engine has given them good results in the past, and this makes them believe that this search engine will give them better results in the future. In other words, this problem exists between keyboard and chair. It's not a technological problem: the technology exists right now to do exactly what you suggest. It's a psychological problem: people naturally trend toward the familiar, and that makes the familiar even more familiar.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      But this was the exact same situation users were in before the very first search engines: there were many directory sites with lists of places to go. Each site had a brand and users became attached to that brand. Generic search engines were successful because they abstracted the list-based directories into generic searches. Users were more than willing to replace the many brands they used with a single brand that offered meta functionality. I see no reason to think that we are finished abstracting. Some new service should come along and abstract away more huge parts of the internet and put it under one brand name. Users will still have their brand-loyalty, it'll just be to a conceptually larger service. Or is there something about the current state of affairs that means it should remain fixed?
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        I think that there's room for us to abstract away branded search under a new category, but I don't think new browsers are the answer. People rely on brands when they have a product whose quality is important to them, but is difficult to discern from casual inspection. So for example, the strongest brands tend to be in markets like soda, foods, and cigarettes, because you're putting this stuff in your body and yet you can't tell what went into it. Branded medicine can fetch prices several times higher than generics, despite being exactly the same stuff. Things like software - Microsoft and Google - have middle-ground brand power, where quality is important (but not all-important) and you have few indications for overall software quality at purchase time. Things like airlines have virtually no branding power, because the trip is over in 5 hours, you've gotten to your destination, and you quickly forget about just how unpleasant the flight over was. Following this, there are two ways to cut brand power of entrenched competitor: 1.) Make consumers care less about product quality. Cunard and White Star were done in by the airline industry, because by cutting trip duration from 5 days to 5 hours, they made consumers ambivalent about trip quality. 2.) Give consumers better information about the actual quality of the product. Google destroyed branded directory sites like Yahoo because they showed everyone just how many websites the directories were missing, and let them evaluate for themselves the quality of the sites. To achieve #2, you could build some software - either a browser plugin or a meta-search engine - that "rates" each result on an unbranded results page, saying "This is filled with adsense" or "this information is false" or "this was copied from here". If you could convince consumers to trust the ratings more than the original search, you'd break the brand power of the original search engine. However, that's probably at least as hard a problem, if not harder, than building the search engine itself. FaceBook and other social networks become dominant because of network effects, not because of brands. They don't let you export your friends, so you become trapped there, without much value anywhere else. FriendFeed tried to break that cycle with their meta-social-network, but it didn't work, probably because they didn't add any value besides what the social network itself had. In cases where new software really is superior, I think it's possible to convince whole cliques to move over at once, though, and that can break the back of the entrenched competitor. I saw it happen with LiveJournal, and then again with MySpace.
orangecat 16y ago
Can't all the things we do and places we go be put into a configuration file somewhere and managed automatically? The passive voice is especially obscuring here; I have no idea what you mean.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  (Thought experiment follows) I only do about five things on the internet, although I "visit" many sites. Let's say those things are 1) read articles, 2) chat with friends, 3) search for media to consume, 4) get advice, and 5) tell people things I think are important. So I make a black box with five buttons. Each button does one of the five functions in a completely brand-free manner. (Of course the box itself would have a brand) Now I am doing all of the things I did before, and all without the concept of an internet "location" or the idea of a brand being associated with my natural activities. The system itself could keep track of available resources and adapt itself to translating those into the things I want. Kind of like Ad-block on steroids. This is all easily doable with current technology, btw. No magic required.
  - brisance 16y ago
    4 out of the 5 things you mentioned are in Rockmelt. And you can bet Rockmelt is doing analytics on the activities being performed.
DanI-S 16y ago
If everything was totally unbranded, just feeds of data, how would providers generate revenue? The obvious route would be by distorting the info in exchange for cash. If Google couldn't show their ads on search result pages, they'd need to charge advertisers to prioritise certain search results in their feed. If Facebook couldn't show ads on the sides of their pages, they'd have to start embedding marketing in your friends' actions - by emphasizing certain behaviours over others - for a fee. I'm sure a bit of subtle manipulation already goes on, but I'll take branding and advertising any day rather than make that the ONLY option.
bbuffone 16y ago
"Is there some reason we have to have brands?" This questions is very odd. "Is there some reason we have to have brands?" is the same as asking "Is there some reason we need Nouns in english?" Nouns/brands allow people to communicate effectively with one another... who they are going to be involved in... who to trust... who to avoid... The opposite of having brands is... Foo-Roulette, where everything you do is met with guys randomly showing you their cocks.

mattmanser 16y ago

This has nothing to do with the browser. This has to do with network effects.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Your reply looks correct but incomplete. Yes, the immediate dominance has to do with networking effects. But the network effects are all based on the branding, and the browser delivers the branding along with the content. Without the branding the network effects are negligible. People use Google because it says "Google" on the page. People go to Facebook because their friends are there. None of the results they want -- search results or chatting-updating friends, has anything to do with the underlying companies involved, although it has everything to do with the network effect, as you point out. To demonstrate, let's suppose all of my 300 friends all used different social networking software. If somebody kept a configuration file that allowed my new browser to access their information in real time and assimilate it for me in one corporate-free spot, I could still have the networking experience of being with my friends -- say picking out a new movie to rent -- without the branding having to be part of the networking effect.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  It's a trivial Greasemonkey script to suppress all the chrome on a search result page. If you really care that much, you or anyone else could whip one up and share it with the world. I suspect very few people would use it, because I suspect that many people use a search engine because of the branding. It makes them feel comfortable and safe; they know that this search engine has given them good results in the past, and this makes them believe that this search engine will give them better results in the future. In other words, this problem exists between keyboard and chair. It's not a technological problem: the technology exists right now to do exactly what you suggest. It's a psychological problem: people naturally trend toward the familiar, and that makes the familiar even more familiar.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    But this was the exact same situation users were in before the very first search engines: there were many directory sites with lists of places to go. Each site had a brand and users became attached to that brand. Generic search engines were successful because they abstracted the list-based directories into generic searches. Users were more than willing to replace the many brands they used with a single brand that offered meta functionality. I see no reason to think that we are finished abstracting. Some new service should come along and abstract away more huge parts of the internet and put it under one brand name. Users will still have their brand-loyalty, it'll just be to a conceptually larger service. Or is there something about the current state of affairs that means it should remain fixed?
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      I think that there's room for us to abstract away branded search under a new category, but I don't think new browsers are the answer. People rely on brands when they have a product whose quality is important to them, but is difficult to discern from casual inspection. So for example, the strongest brands tend to be in markets like soda, foods, and cigarettes, because you're putting this stuff in your body and yet you can't tell what went into it. Branded medicine can fetch prices several times higher than generics, despite being exactly the same stuff. Things like software - Microsoft and Google - have middle-ground brand power, where quality is important (but not all-important) and you have few indications for overall software quality at purchase time. Things like airlines have virtually no branding power, because the trip is over in 5 hours, you've gotten to your destination, and you quickly forget about just how unpleasant the flight over was. Following this, there are two ways to cut brand power of entrenched competitor: 1.) Make consumers care less about product quality. Cunard and White Star were done in by the airline industry, because by cutting trip duration from 5 days to 5 hours, they made consumers ambivalent about trip quality. 2.) Give consumers better information about the actual quality of the product. Google destroyed branded directory sites like Yahoo because they showed everyone just how many websites the directories were missing, and let them evaluate for themselves the quality of the sites. To achieve #2, you could build some software - either a browser plugin or a meta-search engine - that "rates" each result on an unbranded results page, saying "This is filled with adsense" or "this information is false" or "this was copied from here". If you could convince consumers to trust the ratings more than the original search, you'd break the brand power of the original search engine. However, that's probably at least as hard a problem, if not harder, than building the search engine itself. FaceBook and other social networks become dominant because of network effects, not because of brands. They don't let you export your friends, so you become trapped there, without much value anywhere else. FriendFeed tried to break that cycle with their meta-social-network, but it didn't work, probably because they didn't add any value besides what the social network itself had. In cases where new software really is superior, I think it's possible to convince whole cliques to move over at once, though, and that can break the back of the entrenched competitor. I saw it happen with LiveJournal, and then again with MySpace.

orangecat 16y ago

Can't all the things we do and places we go be put into a configuration file somewhere and managed automatically? The passive voice is especially obscuring here; I have no idea what you mean.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
(Thought experiment follows) I only do about five things on the internet, although I "visit" many sites. Let's say those things are 1) read articles, 2) chat with friends, 3) search for media to consume, 4) get advice, and 5) tell people things I think are important. So I make a black box with five buttons. Each button does one of the five functions in a completely brand-free manner. (Of course the box itself would have a brand) Now I am doing all of the things I did before, and all without the concept of an internet "location" or the idea of a brand being associated with my natural activities. The system itself could keep track of available resources and adapt itself to translating those into the things I want. Kind of like Ad-block on steroids. This is all easily doable with current technology, btw. No magic required.
- brisance 16y ago
  4 out of the 5 things you mentioned are in Rockmelt. And you can bet Rockmelt is doing analytics on the activities being performed.

DanI-S 16y ago

If everything was totally unbranded, just feeds of data, how would providers generate revenue? The obvious route would be by distorting the info in exchange for cash. If Google couldn't show their ads on search result pages, they'd need to charge advertisers to prioritise certain search results in their feed. If Facebook couldn't show ads on the sides of their pages, they'd have to start embedding marketing in your friends' actions - by emphasizing certain behaviours over others - for a fee. I'm sure a bit of subtle manipulation already goes on, but I'll take branding and advertising any day rather than make that the ONLY option.

bbuffone 16y ago

"Is there some reason we have to have brands?" This questions is very odd. "Is there some reason we have to have brands?" is the same as asking "Is there some reason we need Nouns in english?" Nouns/brands allow people to communicate effectively with one another... who they are going to be involved in... who to trust... who to avoid... The opposite of having brands is... Foo-Roulette, where everything you do is met with guys randomly showing you their cocks.