> An incumbent’s advantage when providing network goods doesn’t preclude better competitors, it precludes slightly better competitors. A new grocery concept tha

> An incumbent’s advantage when providing network goods doesn’t preclude better competitors, it precludes slightly better competitors. A new grocery concept that is 10% better can take over the world. A new social network that is 10% better is likely to languish in obscurity forever...I mean better is better, right? And if so, is there something we can do about it? First, in a world with finite ingenuity, attention, and passion—do we really want entrepreneurs looking for 10% better when 100% is possible? How do actual people from the real world come to these conclusions? After 10-15 years of experiencing the nightmare that all of these network goods have created worldwide, how can you possibly say that it's actually good that these businesses are impossible to compete with, and that their competitors needing to vastly outperform them in ways that are not only currently inconceivable but have been inconceivable for a decade despite hundreds of billions of dollars worth of effort being placed into the matter is a feature rather than a bug? How many of those 10% improvements currently in the dustbin of some VC fund could compound to create something that's 100, 500, or 1000% better had they had any chance at adoption? It seems intuitively obvious that these products stifle any reasonable innovation in the space they occupy by their continued remaining in private hands, and that waiting around for the mythical solutions that by sheer virtue of their goodness can depose the corporate titans whose business model is to corrode whatever social cohesion still remains is playing right into their hands.