4 ms·
In what real scenario do you see a monopoly not doing exactly what monopolies do? Do they have some moral code they can't break? Do they hate money? What exactl
by eklavya 7y ago
In what real scenario do you see a monopoly not doing exactly what monopolies do? Do they have some moral code they can't break? Do they hate money? What exactly is it that would make them immune to human tendencies?
- manigandham 7y agoGithub is an example.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoIt's been less than a year since the MS acquisition. Give it time.
- manigandham 7y agoMicrosoft is an even better example of a massive company continually competing. Their dev/tech products and tools have gotten magnitudes better in recent years.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoHuh? MS is the perfect example of how monopolies cause things to stagnate. It was only when new technology paradigms allowed for the growth of companies like Google and Amazon (wrt AWS) did MS turn around. IE stagnated for years after MS killed Netscape. No company has really ever challenged Windows on desktop PCs. It was only when new platforms like the Internet and mobile computing came along that provided space for upstarts did MS start competing again.
- manigandham 7y agoSure, but that's the example of monopolies facing competition when they turn bad. Sometimes that takes a new platform shift, other times its just a better product, but either way if there's new value then the monopoly breaks down. I think if anything, the problem today is companies that could be challengers just end up selling to the very incumbent they're competing against.
- pushpop 7y agoIn the instances you’ve described where “monopolies” haven’t dominated the market, they were not actually monopolies because they didn’t have total ownership of the market. A company can be a tech giant and still not be classed as a monopoly. Which are the kind of examples you’re think of.
- pushpop 7y agoFor those that lived through the Windows 9x desktop monopoly in the 90s, the Internet Explorer monopoly, etc, they will see Microsoft as a prime example of how monopolies are terrible. In fact the few areas where you actually see Microsoft improve things are in areas where they have experience but don’t actually have a monopoly (eg IDEs).
- clarkmoody 7y agoMonopolies are subject to the laws of economics. GitHub has gained near-monopoly status because it has provided a superior user experience at a great price. If either of those value propositions start to crumble, git remote add ... Exploitative monopolies almost always have help from the state: The Patent Office, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Reserve, FDA, etc either grant monopoly or cartel privilege to their customers. Monopolies achieved on the market cannot be sustained without continuing to satisfy customer demands.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoBasically everyone I talk to despises Facebook, which gets pretty much no help from the state, but they still use it because there are no real alternatives. My argument is that technological platforms are pretty special when it comes to monopoly power because their lock in/switching costs are so high that they can last long after they've stagnated in terms of innovation. And they just buy up all their competition.
- wolco 7y agoThere are tons of alternatives just none that your friends are on. Surprised no one has taken facebook's launch strategy. Only allow it in one school. Then only ivy league colleges. Then all colleges. Then everyone. Also allow you to import in your email contacts on signup. That strategy created press / word of mouth and kept it youthful until they were ready for the big launch.
- weberc2 7y agoFacebook is different. Your friends are the product, not the tech. With Github the tech is the product.
- elevenbits 7y agoThe point I think is that as GitHub adds more and more integrations (git + issues + fork graph + CI/CI + ...) then it's not so simple to move to another service. The vertical is more convenient until you realize you're an Oracle customer all over again.
- hlarsen 7y agothis is where the Valve vs Epic argument gets interesting as Valve has consistently been pro-consumer, so i have no problem with them being a monopoly. Epic appears to be firmly pro-developer, which no matter what Tim Sweeney says isn't currently translating into an improved consumer experience.
- cameronbrown 7y agoValve are not a monopoly. Steam's competition is not Epic, it is piracy.
- o-__-o 7y agoAlso Origin
- darek 7y agoBeing pro-developer in the long term might result in better consumer experience. Being too pro-consumer on the other hand... well, that gives you mobile gaming with heavy focus on free-to-play and plenty of ads. Be careful what you wish for :)