4 ms·

> I think "modern capitalism" where the goal has obviously become: Extract as much value for as little cost as possible is an ethical quagmire when dealing with

by xpe 4y ago

> I think "modern capitalism" where the goal has obviously become: Extract as much value for as little cost as possible is an ethical quagmire when dealing with digital goods. The clear goal is for companies to keep the right to make zero-cost copies, and force consumers to rent a copy for an on-going permanent cost. 1. Your stated goal is not obvious. Actually, it is not a particularly useful way to understand company goals. We need a better understanding of corporate goals in order to explain the variation we see. To gloss over just one way companies vary: not all companies want to seek profit in the same way. Companies vary in terms of their time horizons. Companies having tough times often try to squeeze out more profits in the short run. More stable companies sometimes are willing to take a hit to build market share. There are many other ways they vary too: risk profiles, market segments, and more. Another example: some companies actively seek to improve their brand even though doing so is expensive and may not pay off right away. And let's not forget that some founders do have goals other than pure profit maximization. Some focus first on other things, believing that sufficient profits will follow. Second, while copies may be nearly zero cost, maintenance and support are not.

horsawlarway 4y ago
Ah yes - Maintenance and support for that "cloud only" feature that just 1 month ago ran just fine on your own hardware, requiring no maintenance and support at all... And look - I'm not even completely disagreeing with you (I'm certainly not downvoting folks in this thread). Particularly - >And let's not forget that some founders do have goals other than pure profit maximization This I agree with whole-heartedly. I strongly believe that founder personality has a large influence on companies, but my complaint is that eventually the founder dies or retires, or is ousted. But the company just keeps chugging along, and (particularly for public companies, although this still applies to private companies) the goal of the company changes from "vision of the founder" to "pay the shareholders". And if we're focused on paying shareholders... it's really, really hard to turn down "we make a widget that costs zero per unit, and we rent it for $x, and legally - no one else is allowed to make that widget". It's just about as profitable as you can possibly be - and that profit enables you to do all sorts of things that are not "improve the company product" to keep that revenue stream. Things like "hire all the engineers who might compete with you" or "Buy all the politicians that might regulate you" or "acquire all the competition that might disrupt you" or "suppress all the uprisings that put your monopoly at risk" or "murder lawyers and journalists in other countries who might expose you". And it works - because they're capturing huge amounts of value in the form of the labor their consumers are forced to expend in renting their product, which they produce for nothing. Worse - I also agree that companies have differing goals - but they are competing, and you can't really compete with an entrenched monopoly that is legally allowed to produce widgets that cost nothing, but is legally allowed to prevent other folks from producing those same widgets for nothing (copyright/trademark/IP). From the outside it might look like this competition is happening, but by far and large, the larger companies are just buying the smaller competitor. Even tiktok - it's getting so much flak in the media right now because our tech giants can't buy it (and it deserves it - but so do Google/Apple/Meta, they're all peddling ads and addiction - selling you as fast as they can). So while companies might start out with different goals - our current system works very hard to force them into becoming profit centers for their owners - who will be the folks who buy them and force the founder out.
- xpe 4y ago
  I agree with much of the above. > "murder lawyers and journalists in other countries who might expose you" Wait, did I miss something?

by xpe 4y ago

horsawlarway 4y ago

Ah yes - Maintenance and support for that "cloud only" feature that just 1 month ago ran just fine on your own hardware, requiring no maintenance and support at all... And look - I'm not even completely disagreeing with you (I'm certainly not downvoting folks in this thread). Particularly - >And let's not forget that some founders do have goals other than pure profit maximization This I agree with whole-heartedly. I strongly believe that founder personality has a large influence on companies, but my complaint is that eventually the founder dies or retires, or is ousted. But the company just keeps chugging along, and (particularly for public companies, although this still applies to private companies) the goal of the company changes from "vision of the founder" to "pay the shareholders". And if we're focused on paying shareholders... it's really, really hard to turn down "we make a widget that costs zero per unit, and we rent it for $x, and legally - no one else is allowed to make that widget". It's just about as profitable as you can possibly be - and that profit enables you to do all sorts of things that are not "improve the company product" to keep that revenue stream. Things like "hire all the engineers who might compete with you" or "Buy all the politicians that might regulate you" or "acquire all the competition that might disrupt you" or "suppress all the uprisings that put your monopoly at risk" or "murder lawyers and journalists in other countries who might expose you". And it works - because they're capturing huge amounts of value in the form of the labor their consumers are forced to expend in renting their product, which they produce for nothing. Worse - I also agree that companies have differing goals - but they are competing, and you can't really compete with an entrenched monopoly that is legally allowed to produce widgets that cost nothing, but is legally allowed to prevent other folks from producing those same widgets for nothing (copyright/trademark/IP). From the outside it might look like this competition is happening, but by far and large, the larger companies are just buying the smaller competitor. Even tiktok - it's getting so much flak in the media right now because our tech giants can't buy it (and it deserves it - but so do Google/Apple/Meta, they're all peddling ads and addiction - selling you as fast as they can). So while companies might start out with different goals - our current system works very hard to force them into becoming profit centers for their owners - who will be the folks who buy them and force the founder out.

xpe 4y ago
I agree with much of the above. > "murder lawyers and journalists in other countries who might expose you" Wait, did I miss something?