4 ms·

In a free market, if such a company's products are crappy, as you propose, then that means there's an opportunity for anyone that wants to make profit to provid

In a free market, if such a company's products are crappy, as you propose, then that means there's an opportunity for anyone that wants to make profit to provide an app that isn't crappy; they'd get rewarded for it. The question shouldn't be "how do we stop this company", it should be, "why aren't people providing competing, non-crappy, apps?". Let's fix the root issue rather than proposing regulation to regulate a problem that shouldn't exist.

the_gastropod 3y ago
This ignores a whole swath of complex social dynamics. Plenty of businesses exist that are horrible, but extremely difficult to dethrone. Ticketmaster is probably one of the less controversial examples.
deprecative 3y ago
Money. You make money. That's why people aren't out competing. You get paid money. Lots of money.
hibikir 3y ago
There's been a lot of discussion about this. My favorite argument there is that there's a big difference between what makes a dating app profitable, and what makes it good at finding people long term relationships. Not unlike how Amazon is far better off showing you ads in a search than giving you the best matching item that you probably want. The features that make an app crappier are what makes it sticky and lucrative. Making an app better at matching people is expensive, but doesn't give you revenue. The owners heading in that direction will get offers from the crappier, more profitable app maker that are hard to refuse.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  This actually opens up a lot of opportunities. With the existing hegemony of Match, a new company doesn't actually need to worry about becoming profitable; if they can be good enough at matchmaking that they start to catch on, then they can rely on a buyout from Match. Much like how a decade ago, "getting bought by Google" was the business plan of a lot of companies, many of which did get acquired by google.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    This probably works once. I'm sure Match's buyout terms will include a non-compete agreement, so you can't keep repeating this trick until they run out of buyout money.
    - margalabargala 3y ago
      Once per person.
brendoelfrendo 3y ago
The people who make the non-crappy competing apps are the ones who get bought and consolidated into the crappy parent company.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> In a free market Hypothetically yes. But why do we still pretend we're in a free market. That is so self evidently not the case.
lukas099 3y ago
There is a market failure though. Big apps bought enough competition to reach a critical mass where startups can't overcome the network effect. Side advice: never use the words "free market" in an argument, you get dismissed immediately because people are instantly compelled to think of reasons that it isn't a free market.
poulpy123 3y ago
The root issue is that the "free market" as you see it is a total myth

the_gastropod 3y ago

This ignores a whole swath of complex social dynamics. Plenty of businesses exist that are horrible, but extremely difficult to dethrone. Ticketmaster is probably one of the less controversial examples.

deprecative 3y ago

Money. You make money. That's why people aren't out competing. You get paid money. Lots of money.

hibikir 3y ago

There's been a lot of discussion about this. My favorite argument there is that there's a big difference between what makes a dating app profitable, and what makes it good at finding people long term relationships. Not unlike how Amazon is far better off showing you ads in a search than giving you the best matching item that you probably want. The features that make an app crappier are what makes it sticky and lucrative. Making an app better at matching people is expensive, but doesn't give you revenue. The owners heading in that direction will get offers from the crappier, more profitable app maker that are hard to refuse.

margalabargala 3y ago
This actually opens up a lot of opportunities. With the existing hegemony of Match, a new company doesn't actually need to worry about becoming profitable; if they can be good enough at matchmaking that they start to catch on, then they can rely on a buyout from Match. Much like how a decade ago, "getting bought by Google" was the business plan of a lot of companies, many of which did get acquired by google.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  This probably works once. I'm sure Match's buyout terms will include a non-compete agreement, so you can't keep repeating this trick until they run out of buyout money.
  - margalabargala 3y ago
    Once per person.

brendoelfrendo 3y ago

The people who make the non-crappy competing apps are the ones who get bought and consolidated into the crappy parent company.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> In a free market Hypothetically yes. But why do we still pretend we're in a free market. That is so self evidently not the case.

lukas099 3y ago

There is a market failure though. Big apps bought enough competition to reach a critical mass where startups can't overcome the network effect. Side advice: never use the words "free market" in an argument, you get dismissed immediately because people are instantly compelled to think of reasons that it isn't a free market.

poulpy123 3y ago

The root issue is that the "free market" as you see it is a total myth