12 ms·

Just my thought: "So, these behemoths have now started to eat each other to satisfy their never ending appetite for money and control. What next? Remaining one

Just my thought: "So, these behemoths have now started to eat each other to satisfy their never ending appetite for money and control. What next? Remaining ones colluding together to prevent entrance of new competitors?"

m12k 6y ago
I'm hoping what's next is: "With mobile and social media platforms having finished their market expansion, and their product categories having settled, privacy-respecting open source alternatives catch up in functionality and usability. Anti-trust and regulation to enforce privacy and interoperability ensure these new entrants get a chance in the market, and consumers have a real chance to escape the clutches of the behemoths" Tall order? Sure - but all progress starts with a dream.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  The problem is they have enormous budgets for promotion and marketing, and they already own multiple direct channels. And the inertia effect is enormous - people simply don't like to change their habits without a very good reason. So the decisive factor is for people to understand they already have a good reason. I don't think this understanding is something mainstream yet though.
  - wkearney99 6y ago
    understanding isn't mainstream so, yeah, inertia is certainly a factor, but the staggering level of tech incompetence among the masses is also a likely factor.
- AshamedCaptain 6y ago
  I'm not sure social media platforms will ever settle. I have already seen one round of proprietary IM networks being toppled and replaced with Jabber. Only for some evil bastard to apply a EEE strategy to Jabber and actually succeed, so we end up in the current situation of yet another round of proprietary IM networks. It is also not a matter of "catching up in functionality and usability". It will never catch up. Proprietary networks can build on top of free ones, but not viceversa. Also, every pseudo-feature introduced by a proprietary network soon becomes mission-critical (e.g. people will say free network X is not "up to the task" because one cannot easily send animated cat pictures with it, in the same way IRC suddenly became "not up to the task"). In summary, it is absurd to wait until free networks "catch up". They will never "catch up", for some users definition of "functionality and usability", and network effects will take care of the rest of users. The only way this works is if users are willing to actually prioritize free-ness and to actually trade off some features to gain it. Boycott closed networks, even. But that will never happen.
  - merpnderp 6y ago
    > apply a EEE strategy to Jabber and actually succeed You talking about Google killing its Jabber compliance?
    - AshamedCaptain 6y ago
      There's more than one. Google, Whatsapp, Apple for starters. All of these 3 started from an XMPP server and then fenced it.
  - hungryforcodes 6y ago
    My mom was never going to use IRC. But she DOES use iMessages.
- username90 6y ago
  Will happen the year linux starts dominating desktop.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    It's starting to dominate mobile already!
    - coldtea 6y ago
      Isn't it insignificant in mobile? Linux dominating mobile should not be about Android using the Linux kernel underneath the scenes...
    - jaegerpicker 6y ago
      Android != linux anymore than iOS == BSD. Both have open source kernels but all the stuff that matters on both OS's is closed source. As long as there is money to be made on selling computing devices open source will ALWAYS be at a big enough disadvantage that it can't catch up. Simply because Apple, Google, Microsoft etc.... can take the ideas from open source and build it into it's OS's but Linux can't. I'd personally love if Open Source ruled the consumer market but that's not going to happen.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        I am not speaking about Android. I also did not say "started" but "starting". Here are the GNU/Linux phones with constantly increasing number of sales (but still tiny of course): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinePhone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinePhone
        jaegerpicker 6y ago
        I love Open Source but I can't ever see them competing with Apple or Google. Literally billions of devices out in the world tied to services that are critical to everyday live. I think this war is already lost.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Unfortunately, given today's new story[1], it doesn't look like at least one Open Source vendor is taking the "privacy-respecting" high road. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26114194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26114194
Jochim 6y ago
Only explicit collusion would be new there. The big tech companies have been strangling any particularly strong looking startup in the cradle through acquisition for years now.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  Explicit collusion wouldn't even be new. They've been doing it for a long time to keep salaries down: https://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsuit/ https://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsu...
adamcstephens 6y ago
Isn’t Apple selling the default search spot to Google already collusion to prevent entrance of new competitors?
- coldtea 6y ago
  Not in any possible interpretation of the situation... For one, the user can change the default search spot. Second, selling it doesn't have any difference that having it just be Google (without money changing hands) Third, why did some upcoming challenger overbid Google for that spot and they were rejected?
  - darkwater 6y ago
    Your first point was already clarly rebutted by the EU in the Internet Explorer case.
    - jaegerpicker 6y ago
      No it wasn't, that was Microsoft defaulting to it's own browser. Using it's market dominance to give another of it's products an unfair advantage. If Apple made a search engine and defaulted to that engine it would be the same. Exactly how Google does on Android. That should fall under the exact same area as IE did.
- tchalla 6y ago
  Here's an implication of your collusion comment. If a default spot is sold to an organisation with highest market share, it is collusion. Can you imagine scenarios in which this implication wouldn't be true?
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    It's not just an organization with the highest market share. It's an organization that has the only competing web browser and mobile platform. Apple and Google collude because it gives them 100% control over mobile and the web.
vladmk 6y ago
Well they’ve already done that, so this isn’t next it’s the past, which will continue to repeat itself. Big Tech companies will probably start behaving more and more like oil companies.
bagacrap 6y ago
Which part of the quote do you think applies here? Are they eating each other or colluding? It seems to me like they're collaborating to make users safe and private. I don't see how this positively or negatively affects either company (don't think Google cares about the IP address of users querying safe browsing).
nabla9 6y ago
They already do that. Google has been paying Apple $8-12 billion per year to be the default iOS search engine. In more realistic terms, it's payment for Apple not to create their own search engine.
monadic3 6y ago
Why would you collude when you have shared incentives? Capital is perfectly capable of shutting out smaller competitors without it, and in fact we've seen this for decades now.
kccqzy 6y ago
What gives you the impression that Apple is trying to eat Google here? For all you know, it could've been a collaborative project between Apple and Google.

m12k 6y ago

I'm hoping what's next is: "With mobile and social media platforms having finished their market expansion, and their product categories having settled, privacy-respecting open source alternatives catch up in functionality and usability. Anti-trust and regulation to enforce privacy and interoperability ensure these new entrants get a chance in the market, and consumers have a real chance to escape the clutches of the behemoths" Tall order? Sure - but all progress starts with a dream.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
The problem is they have enormous budgets for promotion and marketing, and they already own multiple direct channels. And the inertia effect is enormous - people simply don't like to change their habits without a very good reason. So the decisive factor is for people to understand they already have a good reason. I don't think this understanding is something mainstream yet though.
- wkearney99 6y ago
  understanding isn't mainstream so, yeah, inertia is certainly a factor, but the staggering level of tech incompetence among the masses is also a likely factor.
AshamedCaptain 6y ago
I'm not sure social media platforms will ever settle. I have already seen one round of proprietary IM networks being toppled and replaced with Jabber. Only for some evil bastard to apply a EEE strategy to Jabber and actually succeed, so we end up in the current situation of yet another round of proprietary IM networks. It is also not a matter of "catching up in functionality and usability". It will never catch up. Proprietary networks can build on top of free ones, but not viceversa. Also, every pseudo-feature introduced by a proprietary network soon becomes mission-critical (e.g. people will say free network X is not "up to the task" because one cannot easily send animated cat pictures with it, in the same way IRC suddenly became "not up to the task"). In summary, it is absurd to wait until free networks "catch up". They will never "catch up", for some users definition of "functionality and usability", and network effects will take care of the rest of users. The only way this works is if users are willing to actually prioritize free-ness and to actually trade off some features to gain it. Boycott closed networks, even. But that will never happen.
- merpnderp 6y ago
  > apply a EEE strategy to Jabber and actually succeed You talking about Google killing its Jabber compliance?
  - AshamedCaptain 6y ago
    There's more than one. Google, Whatsapp, Apple for starters. All of these 3 started from an XMPP server and then fenced it.
- hungryforcodes 6y ago
  My mom was never going to use IRC. But she DOES use iMessages.
username90 6y ago
Will happen the year linux starts dominating desktop.
- fsflover 6y ago
  It's starting to dominate mobile already!
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Isn't it insignificant in mobile? Linux dominating mobile should not be about Android using the Linux kernel underneath the scenes...
  - jaegerpicker 6y ago
    Android != linux anymore than iOS == BSD. Both have open source kernels but all the stuff that matters on both OS's is closed source. As long as there is money to be made on selling computing devices open source will ALWAYS be at a big enough disadvantage that it can't catch up. Simply because Apple, Google, Microsoft etc.... can take the ideas from open source and build it into it's OS's but Linux can't. I'd personally love if Open Source ruled the consumer market but that's not going to happen.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      I am not speaking about Android. I also did not say "started" but "starting". Here are the GNU/Linux phones with constantly increasing number of sales (but still tiny of course): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinePhone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinePhone
      - jaegerpicker 6y ago
        I love Open Source but I can't ever see them competing with Apple or Google. Literally billions of devices out in the world tied to services that are critical to everyday live. I think this war is already lost.
ryandrake 6y ago
Unfortunately, given today's new story[1], it doesn't look like at least one Open Source vendor is taking the "privacy-respecting" high road. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26114194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26114194

Jochim 6y ago

Only explicit collusion would be new there. The big tech companies have been strangling any particularly strong looking startup in the cradle through acquisition for years now.

solosoyokaze 6y ago
Explicit collusion wouldn't even be new. They've been doing it for a long time to keep salaries down: https://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsuit/ https://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsu...

adamcstephens 6y ago

Isn’t Apple selling the default search spot to Google already collusion to prevent entrance of new competitors?

coldtea 6y ago
Not in any possible interpretation of the situation... For one, the user can change the default search spot. Second, selling it doesn't have any difference that having it just be Google (without money changing hands) Third, why did some upcoming challenger overbid Google for that spot and they were rejected?
- darkwater 6y ago
  Your first point was already clarly rebutted by the EU in the Internet Explorer case.
  - jaegerpicker 6y ago
    No it wasn't, that was Microsoft defaulting to it's own browser. Using it's market dominance to give another of it's products an unfair advantage. If Apple made a search engine and defaulted to that engine it would be the same. Exactly how Google does on Android. That should fall under the exact same area as IE did.
tchalla 6y ago
Here's an implication of your collusion comment. If a default spot is sold to an organisation with highest market share, it is collusion. Can you imagine scenarios in which this implication wouldn't be true?
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  It's not just an organization with the highest market share. It's an organization that has the only competing web browser and mobile platform. Apple and Google collude because it gives them 100% control over mobile and the web.

vladmk 6y ago

Well they’ve already done that, so this isn’t next it’s the past, which will continue to repeat itself. Big Tech companies will probably start behaving more and more like oil companies.

bagacrap 6y ago

Which part of the quote do you think applies here? Are they eating each other or colluding? It seems to me like they're collaborating to make users safe and private. I don't see how this positively or negatively affects either company (don't think Google cares about the IP address of users querying safe browsing).

nabla9 6y ago

They already do that. Google has been paying Apple $8-12 billion per year to be the default iOS search engine. In more realistic terms, it's payment for Apple not to create their own search engine.

monadic3 6y ago

Why would you collude when you have shared incentives? Capital is perfectly capable of shutting out smaller competitors without it, and in fact we've seen this for decades now.

kccqzy 6y ago

What gives you the impression that Apple is trying to eat Google here? For all you know, it could've been a collaborative project between Apple and Google.