4 ms·
> you only have a chance of winning I think the problem here is the definition of "winning". In a sane and healthy society/economy, an entrepreneur would defi
by danaris 3y ago
> you only have a chance of winning
I think the problem here is the definition of "winning".
In a sane and healthy society/economy, an entrepreneur would define "winning" as "being able to make a comfortable living off of what I create".
In Silicon Valley, "winning" is almost always defined as "owning the market, being able to dictate terms to other entrants and to users, and making so much money there's no possible way you could spend it in one lifetime."
This is horribly toxic to the overall culture and economy.
- gretch 3y agoIf you think you have a solution that is the best, and it's much better than what exists, shouldn't you strive to let everyone access it? For example, most people would agree that Uber is much better than the legacy taxi industry (I personally was ripped off many times in old school yellow taxis). Why would Uber make just enough rides so that Uber employees can buy food? Their system is much better and I'm very glad they have tried to spread it to as much of the world as possible. (they have problems for sure, but old school cabs have a ridiculous amount of rider and driver abuse)
- danaris 3y ago"Get everyone access to my solution" != "force everyone to use my solution." Even if your solution is objectively the best one, we don't give people monopolies based on that, for a variety of very good reasons.
- gretch 3y agoInteresting. I don’t think I’ve ever been forced to used to a single product in my whole life (blessed to live in a good country I suppose). I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.