3 ms·

Did you not read the article? The premise is that the current tech giants are effectively only wanting to set up situations where they can extract rents. This i

Did you not read the article? The premise is that the current tech giants are effectively only wanting to set up situations where they can extract rents. This is different from making sewing machines in a competitive market, or even in a monopoly. I think the argument has problems for other reasons - there's still lots of innovation going on, for example - but I think there is a line to be drawn between current vc preferences and historical capitalist or monopoly behavior.

datavirtue 3y ago
The people can write whatever laws they want. We are also slowly sliding toward innovating with the overall system. Wealth can be redistributed with the flick of a wrist.
zer00eyz 3y ago
I did read the article. Rent only happens when cost is high and supply is constrained. Look at housing. Rent seeking isnt sustainable as compute gets cheaper and cheaper. Access is knowledge, sewing, second hand cars: access is portion of knowledge.
- xg15 3y ago
  Companies are increasingly using lock-in strategies too keep their users in their own walled gardens. Apple and Google can collect rent from the entire app economy solely for the privilege of being listed in app stores (while at the same time controlling the rules of that economy and being able to advantage their own offerings). Amazon can do the same with the Amazon marketplace. There is lots of rent seeking going on.
  - nobut8 3y ago
    [dead]
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    This just dropped covering OLD IBM's "bundling stratigy", great overview from a great channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXS6lTYSgCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXS6lTYSgCw Again, what is NEW about what google/apple are doing vs what IBM did? Nothing really. And for as much as the HN crowed likes to hint at the word monopoly, they are a duolopy, and this isnt the same thing (by a far margin)... for as much as they might look close from a consumer perspective.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
umm... a monopoly is literally a rent seeker, that's what a monopoly is good for. If you aren't rent seeking you wasted a ton of time and money on becoming a monopoly for no reason. The only thing new here is that the marxists have found a new way to miss the point.

datavirtue 3y ago

The people can write whatever laws they want. We are also slowly sliding toward innovating with the overall system. Wealth can be redistributed with the flick of a wrist.

zer00eyz 3y ago

I did read the article. Rent only happens when cost is high and supply is constrained. Look at housing. Rent seeking isnt sustainable as compute gets cheaper and cheaper. Access is knowledge, sewing, second hand cars: access is portion of knowledge.

xg15 3y ago
Companies are increasingly using lock-in strategies too keep their users in their own walled gardens. Apple and Google can collect rent from the entire app economy solely for the privilege of being listed in app stores (while at the same time controlling the rules of that economy and being able to advantage their own offerings). Amazon can do the same with the Amazon marketplace. There is lots of rent seeking going on.
- nobut8 3y ago
  [dead]
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  This just dropped covering OLD IBM's "bundling stratigy", great overview from a great channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXS6lTYSgCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXS6lTYSgCw Again, what is NEW about what google/apple are doing vs what IBM did? Nothing really. And for as much as the HN crowed likes to hint at the word monopoly, they are a duolopy, and this isnt the same thing (by a far margin)... for as much as they might look close from a consumer perspective.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

umm... a monopoly is literally a rent seeker, that's what a monopoly is good for. If you aren't rent seeking you wasted a ton of time and money on becoming a monopoly for no reason. The only thing new here is that the marxists have found a new way to miss the point.