5 ms·

Disruption requires inefficiencies/skirtable regulations in the existing system. In this case the system is capitalism itself. As long as software development

Disruption requires inefficiencies/skirtable regulations in the existing system. In this case the system is capitalism itself. As long as software development and user acquisition requires capital, software doesn’t seem all that different from other capital intensive activities. IMO this will change when 1. Regulations and/or cultural norms inhibit user-hostile behavior. Or 2. capitalism itself changes

benjaminjosephw 6y ago
Venture Captital is not the same as capitalism. In fact, you could argue that the hyper-growth pro-monopoly attitudes of VC firms is decidedly anti-capitalist in as much as they are anticompetitive behaviours. Arguing that the current system is the only one that will work, regardless of how broken it is, is a very dangerous position to advocate for and an anti-pattern that would eventually lead us away from a fair and equal marketplace. That's not capitalism.
- jethro_tell 6y ago
  You're right on the money here. I'm old enough to remember when you could start a business by going down to the bank and borrowing money with a 5 year term. The problem is you can't play in a winner take all market with a slow steady growth model any longer. The multi national monopoly with a stake closest to your business model will just crush you for fun. This results in new ideas being go big or go home. May as well not play unless you're going to over borrow and try to grow so fast that you corner the market over night. Once you get the market cornered though, you gotta pay back that loan. It would be rad if there was enough pie for people to have a good idea and get some customers and pay all their people and go home without needing endless growth.
harha 6y ago
Regulation could go a long way, e.g. tax incentives for open source development or using open standard/platforms. Imagine giving developers or companies lower tax rates on profits from open source products, e.g. for resulting donation income. That way they could operate cheaper and could pass the savings in tax on to users or investors. For clients this would be nice too, they could reduce the risk of being locked in when choosing a provider and shouldn’t care as long as it’s not their core business. The challenge would be preventing misuse and how to get countries to give away tax income that other countries might use.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The behemoths are already based upon open source tech and have contributed to it. But what they make on top of it neither has its "schema" (software sufficient to fork your own) open nor the instances accessible or communicatable. The same way that installing Linux doesn't mean I can access your files or configurations on top of them. The way I see it that is a price of open source software that you can't control how others use it in exchange for not being controlled. Open standards as positive externalities would be a rational reason for tax discounts even if the value of it varies greatly - although good for repairs few would care for a specific printer model's firmware as it is so specific in its domain.

benjaminjosephw 6y ago

Venture Captital is not the same as capitalism. In fact, you could argue that the hyper-growth pro-monopoly attitudes of VC firms is decidedly anti-capitalist in as much as they are anticompetitive behaviours. Arguing that the current system is the only one that will work, regardless of how broken it is, is a very dangerous position to advocate for and an anti-pattern that would eventually lead us away from a fair and equal marketplace. That's not capitalism.

jethro_tell 6y ago
You're right on the money here. I'm old enough to remember when you could start a business by going down to the bank and borrowing money with a 5 year term. The problem is you can't play in a winner take all market with a slow steady growth model any longer. The multi national monopoly with a stake closest to your business model will just crush you for fun. This results in new ideas being go big or go home. May as well not play unless you're going to over borrow and try to grow so fast that you corner the market over night. Once you get the market cornered though, you gotta pay back that loan. It would be rad if there was enough pie for people to have a good idea and get some customers and pay all their people and go home without needing endless growth.

harha 6y ago

Regulation could go a long way, e.g. tax incentives for open source development or using open standard/platforms. Imagine giving developers or companies lower tax rates on profits from open source products, e.g. for resulting donation income. That way they could operate cheaper and could pass the savings in tax on to users or investors. For clients this would be nice too, they could reduce the risk of being locked in when choosing a provider and shouldn’t care as long as it’s not their core business. The challenge would be preventing misuse and how to get countries to give away tax income that other countries might use.

Nasrudith 6y ago
The behemoths are already based upon open source tech and have contributed to it. But what they make on top of it neither has its "schema" (software sufficient to fork your own) open nor the instances accessible or communicatable. The same way that installing Linux doesn't mean I can access your files or configurations on top of them. The way I see it that is a price of open source software that you can't control how others use it in exchange for not being controlled. Open standards as positive externalities would be a rational reason for tax discounts even if the value of it varies greatly - although good for repairs few would care for a specific printer model's firmware as it is so specific in its domain.