3 ms·
>You don't need a monopoly to do this because people can be bilingual True, but it takes more work/effort to learn two languages than one. Whereas if we had on
by Rury 5y ago
>You don't need a monopoly to do this because people can be bilingual
True, but it takes more work/effort to learn two languages than one. Whereas if we had one language (as in a monopoly), it'd be even simpler/easier.
>The same is true of internet standards. Everybody uses TCP/IP.
Yes, if protocols were businesses, they then could be thought of as having a monopoly on their domains.
- jdbernard 5y agoThere are not enough similarities between protocols and businesses for that analogy to work or have any explanatory value.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Rury 5y agoExcept that there is: >a dominant protocol of a certain domain where there's no other widely used alternative: TCP/IP >a dominant business of a certain industry where there's no other widely used alternative: monopoly I think you might be missing the point I'm making. If you carefully re-read what I wrote, I never said monopolies came without bad properties or were immune to being bad. I also never said protocols were in fact the same things as businesses. I merely pointed out a good tradeoff people aren't acknowledging: Monopolies can provide a common, standard of something which can make certain things easier (just like TCP/IP does). And that's not the same as saying: "TCP/IP comes without problems..."; "monopolies come without problems..."; "TCP/IP is a monopoly..."