3 ms·

> How much has this moved the needle on chrome's browser share? It depends on your timescale. Early adopters are already shifting away from it. I don't expect

> How much has this moved the needle on chrome's browser share? It depends on your timescale. Early adopters are already shifting away from it. I don't expect these effects to be immediate, but do you expect that everyone will still be using Chrome in 10 years? 20? 30? The same can be said of search. Early adopters are already using ChatGPT for many queries.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> I don't expect these effects to be immediate I do, if this efficient market hypothesis were to hold true The changes to the browser were immediate from one version to the next, what would stop everyone who doesn't like that from switching browsers instead of upgrading? The fact that it isn't immediate kind of proves the point: the market doesn't always favor the best product, because dominant players can exploit their market position to make anti-features and hide them from users If there was a truly efficient market, this behavior would be immediately punished. That it was not, proves that there is not. If a dominant company can abuse its users for a decade or more before the market handles the problem, that speaks to a lack of a competitive environment, or anticompetitive behavior. The market has failed, and thus some intervention is warranted to stop the abuse sooner than that. I propose for your economic theory, though, the title of "eventual efficiency" in markets :)
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  Markets are exceptionally efficient over time, just like nature. Barring cataclysm, organisms that are displaced from their niches take ages to go extinct. It's the same with businesses. And what do you mean "immediate"? Days? Months? Years? Market effects take time, as anyone who has studied marketing will tell you. > what would stop everyone who doesn't like that from switching browsers instead of upgrading? The fact that they're human beings with their own lives and finite attention spans. There is an entire body of work segmenting markets into categories like innovators, early adopters, early majority, etc. Did you wait in line for an iPhone on launch day? Why not? > If there was a truly efficient market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman whats a truly efficient market? > that speaks to a lack of a competitive environment The environment is plenty competitive. There is no further proof required of this than the continued rise of new companies that displace their competition. In a thriving ecosystem there is lots of death as well as lots of birth. > The market has failed It hasn't, it just doesn't move on timescales you can relate to easily. Organizing people to make and distribute things takes unimaginable time and energy. Supposing that a centrally planned intervention can be more efficient is the height of communist fallacy. It has failed every time it has been tried.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > The environment is plenty competitive the environment is not competitive enough. There is no further proof required of this than that google can abuse its users and make products worse for years, perhaps decades, without experiencing market punishment for it the end determines the sufficiency of the means: if the end is that google can do that, the current means are insufficient, because that is bad > Organizing people to make and distribute things takes unimaginable time and energy. it absolutely does, far, far moreso when you're going up against a giant like google solution: slay the giant. We've tried not doing so, and it brought us here, to this failure point.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

> I don't expect these effects to be immediate I do, if this efficient market hypothesis were to hold true The changes to the browser were immediate from one version to the next, what would stop everyone who doesn't like that from switching browsers instead of upgrading? The fact that it isn't immediate kind of proves the point: the market doesn't always favor the best product, because dominant players can exploit their market position to make anti-features and hide them from users If there was a truly efficient market, this behavior would be immediately punished. That it was not, proves that there is not. If a dominant company can abuse its users for a decade or more before the market handles the problem, that speaks to a lack of a competitive environment, or anticompetitive behavior. The market has failed, and thus some intervention is warranted to stop the abuse sooner than that. I propose for your economic theory, though, the title of "eventual efficiency" in markets :)

thegrimmest 3y ago
Markets are exceptionally efficient over time, just like nature. Barring cataclysm, organisms that are displaced from their niches take ages to go extinct. It's the same with businesses. And what do you mean "immediate"? Days? Months? Years? Market effects take time, as anyone who has studied marketing will tell you. > what would stop everyone who doesn't like that from switching browsers instead of upgrading? The fact that they're human beings with their own lives and finite attention spans. There is an entire body of work segmenting markets into categories like innovators, early adopters, early majority, etc. Did you wait in line for an iPhone on launch day? Why not? > If there was a truly efficient market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman whats a truly efficient market? > that speaks to a lack of a competitive environment The environment is plenty competitive. There is no further proof required of this than the continued rise of new companies that displace their competition. In a thriving ecosystem there is lots of death as well as lots of birth. > The market has failed It hasn't, it just doesn't move on timescales you can relate to easily. Organizing people to make and distribute things takes unimaginable time and energy. Supposing that a centrally planned intervention can be more efficient is the height of communist fallacy. It has failed every time it has been tried.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > The environment is plenty competitive the environment is not competitive enough. There is no further proof required of this than that google can abuse its users and make products worse for years, perhaps decades, without experiencing market punishment for it the end determines the sufficiency of the means: if the end is that google can do that, the current means are insufficient, because that is bad > Organizing people to make and distribute things takes unimaginable time and energy. it absolutely does, far, far moreso when you're going up against a giant like google solution: slay the giant. We've tried not doing so, and it brought us here, to this failure point.