4 ms·

The rules are big tech companies are not allowed to compete with nation states. New currencies would supplant those of nation states and reduce their power, hen

The rules are big tech companies are not allowed to compete with nation states. New currencies would supplant those of nation states and reduce their power, hence the pushback. Facebook is the last company I’d want to see dominate the coming global corporate currencies. They are unscrupulous, dishonest to the core, and willing to cheat partners and customers alike to get what they want. IMO banks rather than currencies will be the first area tech companies can push into, then payment networks, then eventually currencies as nation states wither away. There are some tech companies competing with banks and payment networks already, with some success, particularly in the UK. It will take a while for them to supplant traditional banks but I see it as inevitable and, for the reasons you point out, not too difficult, as the incumbents are sclerotic and unable to grasp the importance of software.

starfallg 7y ago
>I see it as inevitable and, for the reasons you point out, not too difficult, as the incumbents are sclerotic and unable to grasp the importance of software. It's not inevitable at all. This is because (retail) banks operate more or less in the same way in their back office. The change is the front office - retail branches are being replaced with apps. But they have seen this before - with telephone and online banking. And the current generation of apps from the big banks is catching up (mainly UX). The only thing that really stands-out for the startups is the onboarding process. This is going to end in a completely different way than the retail wars, because there, it was a revolution in both the front (storefront) and back (logistics of getting the product to the customers) office.
- grey-area 7y ago
  I know people who work at large banks, they work nothing like a tech company. Tech/IT is seen as a cost centre, often outsourced, and if not outsourced performed by disillusioned teams with neither influence nor autonomy. The back end of big banks is a huge mess of legacy systems, they had to be forced to adopt open banking, and the leadership don’t recognise that everything will be software soon. They are the antithesis of tech companies.
  - starfallg 7y ago
    > I know people who work at large banks, they work nothing like a tech company. > Tech/IT is seen as a cost centre, often outsourced, and if not outsourced performed by disillusioned teams with neither influence nor autonomy. That may be true, but how people work is beside the point. That's a question of culture and dependent on the industry and it's maturity. Yes, it may make or break individual companies, but on the scale of industries it's not relevant. The truth is that tech companies don't "win" by working better, they "win" by playing a different game and the game here isn't too different to the incumbents. > The back end of big banks is a huge mess of legacy systems Yes and no, as big banks are not monolithic nor homogenous. But this doesn't make the jobs of startups any easier either because the interfaces to existing platforms are just as necessary for them in order to interoperate. >the leadership don’t recognise that everything will be software soon Actually they do and they are betting on that to cut costs by automating legacy and inefficient functions. > They are the antithesis of big tech. They are not the antithesis, they are just at a different stage on the maturity curve. It's up to the disruptors to find enough gaps in their armour to usurp them. But I don't think that there is that much room for disruption in the retail market apart from niches players, because fundamentally their models are not that different.
    - grey-area 7y ago
      That may be true, but how people work is beside the point. I disagree.
  - asjw 7y ago
    I worked for large banks and fintech startups It's true banks don't work like tech companies, it is also true that tech companies don't work like bank and the 100% of them failed to replace banks, because banks are more trustworthy when it's about client'money safety. legacy systems are a good thing, it means they already solved a lot of edge cases and been working good enough for years (or tens of years) The new shiny toy might look good, but if it does 1/20 of what's needed by the business, it's useless. I work now in insurance, evolving legacy systems to new technologies, legacy systems suck, but they are also rock solid and a lot of things they do are vital for the company and, more often than not, save people's jobs. A lot of rules we don't understand are there to avoid abuses I'm working on a system that's offline from 11pm to 7am to avoid that agents created insurance policies over night making unfair competition to real agencies with offices, employees and regulated opening hours. It's been put there probably 20 years ago, it looks silly now, but it served a purpose In one year I've been able to replace alone maybe 1/30 of what the main legacy system does. Which, btw, sometimes still calls an even more legacy system on the backend, just like my system exposes what the new system still doesn't handle as a safer wrapper to the legacy one. It's a good pace, we have proved it can be done without breaking the workflow, now it's time to accelerate and build a little team around the project. Evolution is layered, disruption is a jouvenile sin and usually it is bad for company's workers more than for companies.

starfallg 7y ago

>I see it as inevitable and, for the reasons you point out, not too difficult, as the incumbents are sclerotic and unable to grasp the importance of software. It's not inevitable at all. This is because (retail) banks operate more or less in the same way in their back office. The change is the front office - retail branches are being replaced with apps. But they have seen this before - with telephone and online banking. And the current generation of apps from the big banks is catching up (mainly UX). The only thing that really stands-out for the startups is the onboarding process. This is going to end in a completely different way than the retail wars, because there, it was a revolution in both the front (storefront) and back (logistics of getting the product to the customers) office.

grey-area 7y ago
I know people who work at large banks, they work nothing like a tech company. Tech/IT is seen as a cost centre, often outsourced, and if not outsourced performed by disillusioned teams with neither influence nor autonomy. The back end of big banks is a huge mess of legacy systems, they had to be forced to adopt open banking, and the leadership don’t recognise that everything will be software soon. They are the antithesis of tech companies.
- starfallg 7y ago
  > I know people who work at large banks, they work nothing like a tech company. > Tech/IT is seen as a cost centre, often outsourced, and if not outsourced performed by disillusioned teams with neither influence nor autonomy. That may be true, but how people work is beside the point. That's a question of culture and dependent on the industry and it's maturity. Yes, it may make or break individual companies, but on the scale of industries it's not relevant. The truth is that tech companies don't "win" by working better, they "win" by playing a different game and the game here isn't too different to the incumbents. > The back end of big banks is a huge mess of legacy systems Yes and no, as big banks are not monolithic nor homogenous. But this doesn't make the jobs of startups any easier either because the interfaces to existing platforms are just as necessary for them in order to interoperate. >the leadership don’t recognise that everything will be software soon Actually they do and they are betting on that to cut costs by automating legacy and inefficient functions. > They are the antithesis of big tech. They are not the antithesis, they are just at a different stage on the maturity curve. It's up to the disruptors to find enough gaps in their armour to usurp them. But I don't think that there is that much room for disruption in the retail market apart from niches players, because fundamentally their models are not that different.
  - grey-area 7y ago
    That may be true, but how people work is beside the point. I disagree.
- asjw 7y ago
  I worked for large banks and fintech startups It's true banks don't work like tech companies, it is also true that tech companies don't work like bank and the 100% of them failed to replace banks, because banks are more trustworthy when it's about client'money safety. legacy systems are a good thing, it means they already solved a lot of edge cases and been working good enough for years (or tens of years) The new shiny toy might look good, but if it does 1/20 of what's needed by the business, it's useless. I work now in insurance, evolving legacy systems to new technologies, legacy systems suck, but they are also rock solid and a lot of things they do are vital for the company and, more often than not, save people's jobs. A lot of rules we don't understand are there to avoid abuses I'm working on a system that's offline from 11pm to 7am to avoid that agents created insurance policies over night making unfair competition to real agencies with offices, employees and regulated opening hours. It's been put there probably 20 years ago, it looks silly now, but it served a purpose In one year I've been able to replace alone maybe 1/30 of what the main legacy system does. Which, btw, sometimes still calls an even more legacy system on the backend, just like my system exposes what the new system still doesn't handle as a safer wrapper to the legacy one. It's a good pace, we have proved it can be done without breaking the workflow, now it's time to accelerate and build a little team around the project. Evolution is layered, disruption is a jouvenile sin and usually it is bad for company's workers more than for companies.