4 ms·

I can't help but think that companies like basecamp or tile, largely brought about this situation to themselves. Neither google nor apple should be platforms to

I can't help but think that companies like basecamp or tile, largely brought about this situation to themselves. Neither google nor apple should be platforms to be dependent on. They should be used as startup platforms, get some momentum and then actively seek to build their own outreach to customers independently. Putting all your money in someone else's bag for years and expecting them not to steal some , is borderline delusional. Rent seeking is a spontaneous behavior of big platforms. HN orthodoxy will suggest otherwise, but i think everyone who depends on corporate owned platforms should start pulling away as soon as they have momentum. Citing the lack of alternatives is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if nobody tries to find an alternative pathway , there just won't be one

robbrown451 7y ago
Or, you know, antitrust action. You may have good advice, given the status quo, but why must me accept the status quo. Also, a more likely thing to happen than "pulling away as soon as they have momentum" is "abandon the project far earlier, because investors didn't want to go there so it never got off the ground at all."
- buboard 7y ago
  Because antitrust action will just distract from trying to actually beat the status quo, without effect (like we havent seen any effects fron eu’s repeated attempts to steer ppl away from google). In the case of basecamp i dont think they need investors to survive and perhaps they can use the google tax money better elsewhere
johnward 7y ago
Google has like 80% of the search market share. How does one not become dependent on that traffic source?
- buboard 7y ago
  How did any of these companies (google amazon apple) grow? Feeding the search machine only makes google stronger. If businesses stop giving away their content to google for free, it will stop being so important. The only platforms that can be trusted are the unowned, decentralised ones, email and www
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    "Feeding the search machine only makes google stronger. If businesses stop giving away their content to google for free, it will stop being so important" So, let's say you are a business. You can only control what you do, not what all the other businesses in the world do. Is your strategy to keep your content off Google, in hopes that you will starve the "search machine" and thereby weaken it? My guess is you won't be a business for long with that strategy.
    - buboard 7y ago
      Almost all of facebook s content is off google But take basecamp for example. Do they really need google searches for such a specialized business software? There is email and other forms of marketing they can use to reach out directly to prospective users with that 70000.
      - robbrown451 7y ago
        So they should spam people rather than let people do searches and arrive at their site? And that is just Basecamp. There are many other businesses whose best strategy is to "play ball" with the dominant companies. But they are at their mercy. Many people (including myself) feel that this isn't healthy competition nor is socially optimal. Regardless, my point was that you advocated a strategy that only works if all the small companies are cooperating....in other words, a game theoretically unsound strategy.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Before Google, the local newspaper had like 80% of advertising market share in each city, and many were owned by national conglomerates.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    I highly doubt that. But anyway, I don't see how that's relevant.
    - closeparen 7y ago
      Because Google has not changed the structure of the market, only which player sits in that position.
      - robbrown451 7y ago
        But when you advertised in a newspaper, you didn't have to fear the newspaper suddenly becoming your competitor and then refusing to run your ads. Well, I suppose that might've happened if you were another publication or something. But it was relatively rare. Also, newspapers weren't the only way people advertised, for instance the yellow pages was a big deal when I was a kid. (and it was the subject of a Ralph Nader article calling it out as a monopoly: https://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/08/fort_dix_vetera.html https://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/08/fo... )
        bagacrap 7y ago
        Google refused to run someone's ads? When I search for "cloud hosting" the first two things I see are ads for IBM and Lenovo. The third hit is an ad for Google.
        robbrown451 7y ago
        Right but what about having a product in an app store and then next thing you know Apple or Google has their own product that competes with it.
- basch 7y ago
  The Internet is so full of spam and noise, people have become dependent on gatekeepers to sift through for signal. Nobody really wants to browse the raw web anymore. If you want to make money online, youre going to have to buy access to someones platform, whether that be Google, Apple, Ebay, Amazon, Facebook. Youre either buying shelf space in a marketplace, or youre buying or selling billboard space. (Even if you are a self hosted website, which is becoming more rare as the CMS market consolidates behind newspaper's tech offerings) youre buying ads from Google, Facebook, or Microsoft.) The one I left out is "content production" whether that be journalism or entertainment, but the same thing applies. Youre going to need to convince a newspaper, radio, streaming service, or Disney to publish you. However, a monopoly, this does not make. The world being pay to play doesnt automatically mean one behemoth is sole gatekeeper. There are plenty of different platforms you can fight for access on, fights you may win and profit from.
Hamuko 7y ago
>Neither google nor apple should be platforms to be dependent on. Yeah, just like make phone to rival Google ($1 trillion) and Apple ($1.4 trillion) and you too can sell hardware and software without the fear of getting shut out. It's just that easy.

robbrown451 7y ago

Or, you know, antitrust action. You may have good advice, given the status quo, but why must me accept the status quo. Also, a more likely thing to happen than "pulling away as soon as they have momentum" is "abandon the project far earlier, because investors didn't want to go there so it never got off the ground at all."

buboard 7y ago
Because antitrust action will just distract from trying to actually beat the status quo, without effect (like we havent seen any effects fron eu’s repeated attempts to steer ppl away from google). In the case of basecamp i dont think they need investors to survive and perhaps they can use the google tax money better elsewhere

johnward 7y ago

Google has like 80% of the search market share. How does one not become dependent on that traffic source?

buboard 7y ago
How did any of these companies (google amazon apple) grow? Feeding the search machine only makes google stronger. If businesses stop giving away their content to google for free, it will stop being so important. The only platforms that can be trusted are the unowned, decentralised ones, email and www
- robbrown451 7y ago
  "Feeding the search machine only makes google stronger. If businesses stop giving away their content to google for free, it will stop being so important" So, let's say you are a business. You can only control what you do, not what all the other businesses in the world do. Is your strategy to keep your content off Google, in hopes that you will starve the "search machine" and thereby weaken it? My guess is you won't be a business for long with that strategy.
  - buboard 7y ago
    Almost all of facebook s content is off google But take basecamp for example. Do they really need google searches for such a specialized business software? There is email and other forms of marketing they can use to reach out directly to prospective users with that 70000.
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      So they should spam people rather than let people do searches and arrive at their site? And that is just Basecamp. There are many other businesses whose best strategy is to "play ball" with the dominant companies. But they are at their mercy. Many people (including myself) feel that this isn't healthy competition nor is socially optimal. Regardless, my point was that you advocated a strategy that only works if all the small companies are cooperating....in other words, a game theoretically unsound strategy.
closeparen 7y ago
Before Google, the local newspaper had like 80% of advertising market share in each city, and many were owned by national conglomerates.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  I highly doubt that. But anyway, I don't see how that's relevant.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    Because Google has not changed the structure of the market, only which player sits in that position.
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      But when you advertised in a newspaper, you didn't have to fear the newspaper suddenly becoming your competitor and then refusing to run your ads. Well, I suppose that might've happened if you were another publication or something. But it was relatively rare. Also, newspapers weren't the only way people advertised, for instance the yellow pages was a big deal when I was a kid. (and it was the subject of a Ralph Nader article calling it out as a monopoly: https://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/08/fort_dix_vetera.html https://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/08/fo... )
      - bagacrap 7y ago
        Google refused to run someone's ads? When I search for "cloud hosting" the first two things I see are ads for IBM and Lenovo. The third hit is an ad for Google.
        robbrown451 7y ago
        Right but what about having a product in an app store and then next thing you know Apple or Google has their own product that competes with it.
basch 7y ago
The Internet is so full of spam and noise, people have become dependent on gatekeepers to sift through for signal. Nobody really wants to browse the raw web anymore. If you want to make money online, youre going to have to buy access to someones platform, whether that be Google, Apple, Ebay, Amazon, Facebook. Youre either buying shelf space in a marketplace, or youre buying or selling billboard space. (Even if you are a self hosted website, which is becoming more rare as the CMS market consolidates behind newspaper's tech offerings) youre buying ads from Google, Facebook, or Microsoft.) The one I left out is "content production" whether that be journalism or entertainment, but the same thing applies. Youre going to need to convince a newspaper, radio, streaming service, or Disney to publish you. However, a monopoly, this does not make. The world being pay to play doesnt automatically mean one behemoth is sole gatekeeper. There are plenty of different platforms you can fight for access on, fights you may win and profit from.

Hamuko 7y ago

>Neither google nor apple should be platforms to be dependent on. Yeah, just like make phone to rival Google ($1 trillion) and Apple ($1.4 trillion) and you too can sell hardware and software without the fear of getting shut out. It's just that easy.