4 ms·

What all this says to me, in total, is that greater competition where you have a bunch of potentially medium sized companies or smaller but no clear massive (50

What all this says to me, in total, is that greater competition where you have a bunch of potentially medium sized companies or smaller but no clear massive (50%+ market share) leader that power can’t congregate means they have both incentive to provide a better experience and having multiple targets makes it harder on negative actors, effectively. Thats my takeaway here is that we should as a matter of regulation / spirit of market competition lean on incentivizing creating medium (mid?) size companies worth collective $100 billion+ than a few giant trillion dollar corporations, as it relates to majority software companies. I think with hardware it’s A bit different when it comes to economies of scale so I don’t know how that could break down and I don’t want to include that for the sake of argument but there could be something there too

pixl97 3y ago
Otherwise summed up as "Monocultures suck"
graemep 3y ago
That is true in any market, not just software. There is a large element of regulatory capture that shapes regulation to favour bigger businesses instead of reining them. Software and online services have been particularly bad because there are so many ways to work around regulation. Apple's current malicious compliance with the EU is an egregious one, but most are more subtle (FB persuading regulators to let them take over whatsapp by arguing chat and social media are different markets). Ideally, IMO, we should aim to prevent monopoly, not just abuse of monopoly (which is what regulators currently do): https://pietersz.co.uk/2009/11/fix-capitalism https://pietersz.co.uk/2009/11/fix-capitalism
Geisterde 3y ago
It is the general consensus that competition in the market place is good for consumers and propels business to find creative solutions that create value in the econony. I would say that isnt always the case, Rockefeller had something like 90% market share before litigation of antitrust began, by the time the case was adjucated their market share had already slipped; what this indicates is that even when one party holds 90% of market share (and probably total wealth for that matter), the market will eventually cut them down to size. At the same time, rockefeller was responsible for bringing a groundbreaking innovation to society. So, it was good that initially all that capital flowed to him, because he was using it to move society forward (at least in this regard), and it was also good to see that capital flow away on its own, because it was needed elsewhere. I would also point out that the centralization of companies into todays megacorps is influenced by many factors, economies of scale may be one, but so are intellectual property laws (we really dont need them!). In fact, I would venture a guess that most regulation is written by the companies that are being regulated, that keeps competition at bay, and they wont regulate themselves downwards in the food chain. Finally, I would say the centralization really took place during WWI/WW2, it was convenient for the government to shout orders at a whole 3 people to build tanks instead of automobiles; this centralization is a strategic goal of the united states government, and enacting it through secret deals (rather than law) is a preferable method to preserve state secrecy.
hyperpape 3y ago
Worth noting that by market cap, Twitter is 20-30x less valuable than Facebook.

pixl97 3y ago

Otherwise summed up as "Monocultures suck"

graemep 3y ago

That is true in any market, not just software. There is a large element of regulatory capture that shapes regulation to favour bigger businesses instead of reining them. Software and online services have been particularly bad because there are so many ways to work around regulation. Apple's current malicious compliance with the EU is an egregious one, but most are more subtle (FB persuading regulators to let them take over whatsapp by arguing chat and social media are different markets). Ideally, IMO, we should aim to prevent monopoly, not just abuse of monopoly (which is what regulators currently do): https://pietersz.co.uk/2009/11/fix-capitalism https://pietersz.co.uk/2009/11/fix-capitalism

Geisterde 3y ago

It is the general consensus that competition in the market place is good for consumers and propels business to find creative solutions that create value in the econony. I would say that isnt always the case, Rockefeller had something like 90% market share before litigation of antitrust began, by the time the case was adjucated their market share had already slipped; what this indicates is that even when one party holds 90% of market share (and probably total wealth for that matter), the market will eventually cut them down to size. At the same time, rockefeller was responsible for bringing a groundbreaking innovation to society. So, it was good that initially all that capital flowed to him, because he was using it to move society forward (at least in this regard), and it was also good to see that capital flow away on its own, because it was needed elsewhere. I would also point out that the centralization of companies into todays megacorps is influenced by many factors, economies of scale may be one, but so are intellectual property laws (we really dont need them!). In fact, I would venture a guess that most regulation is written by the companies that are being regulated, that keeps competition at bay, and they wont regulate themselves downwards in the food chain. Finally, I would say the centralization really took place during WWI/WW2, it was convenient for the government to shout orders at a whole 3 people to build tanks instead of automobiles; this centralization is a strategic goal of the united states government, and enacting it through secret deals (rather than law) is a preferable method to preserve state secrecy.

hyperpape 3y ago

Worth noting that by market cap, Twitter is 20-30x less valuable than Facebook.