3 ms·

Ah, the implication of my point was their power doesn't come from their brand anymore, it's from their data, and I think producing loss leaders into the market

Ah, the implication of my point was their power doesn't come from their brand anymore, it's from their data, and I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets. (haute couture houses in conglomerates that sell smelly water are another example of that VFX pattern) Their brand could be equifax or the SEC at this point and it wouldn't matter (imo), because they have ensconced, established power. The FAANGs become pernicious, and I don't see them all being around in a decade.

mindslight 6y ago
Google's business model requires evergreen data though. They can't just take their current trove of data and turn into an Equifax that knows things like you searched for bread recipes in 2020. So they require continuing buy in from their data subjects. Their power also comes from employees that can do intelligent (albeit evil) things with that data. Nobody thinks it's hip to go work at IBM. Microsoft had a bit of a mindshare resurgence because they pivoted from their Big Evil brand into more of an open company, but that's in spite of being a boring company rather than because of it. Eventually when the shine wears off, big tech will be forced to give up the pretenses. But I think it has to happen memetically first, rather than vice versa. > I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets You'll get no argument from me about this. I'd state it a bit differently, being more concerned about Free/Secure options, rather than a "market" of competing centralized (inherently surveillance-based) products. But I do agree, and I'm really just trying to explore what's keeping them in their current state.