5 ms·

Are you suggesting legislation that "levels the playing field"? I'd much rather have this settled by entrepreneurs fighting on the basis of their ideas than so

by asanwal 14y ago

Are you suggesting legislation that "levels the playing field"? I'd much rather have this settled by entrepreneurs fighting on the basis of their ideas than some legislator without a clue. No company dominates forever esp in technology. Craigslist disrupted a huge classified industry without any legislator saying that papers had to "open" up their data. Markets work over time.

cookiecaper 14y ago
>No company dominates forever esp in technology. I'm not so sure (for reasonable values of "forever"). From what I see, once some software hits a critical mass, it's nearly inextricable. Look at Microsoft. Before they became a major player, the dominant OS and computer system would seem to shift every couple of years; Amiga, Commodore, Apple, etc., but once Microsoft became a major player they never really lost their grip. They continue to maintain that grip simply because so many people were familiarized on their systems and so much software was written for those systems. Does anyone really believe that someone looks at OS X and Windows these days and decides that Windows is objectively superior? Most people, even technical people who hate Apple's MO, would admit that OS X is better on its merits alone. The reason that MS has dominated and continues to dominate is because of the software available for the platform. It's all about lock-in. People don't use Windows because it has more compelling features than OS X, they use Windows because they want to play games, buy software off the shelf and know it will run without any problems, or run their company's internal software. Let's take Facebook as another example. For years there was a pretty constant, roughly bi-annual shift in the most prominent "social networking" site; LiveJournal, Friendster, Xanga, etc., until Facebook. Around 2008 Facebook began eating MySpace's lunch and Facebook remains undisputed social networking champ today with no signs of slowage. I'm concerned that Facebook is the new Microsoft -- it has become the de-facto standard, and despite any number of superior features that may be developed in other systems, it doesn't look like anyone is going to be able to challenge Facebook seriously. Some would say that Google was perhaps the most worthy challenger, but even they have failed to really make a dent despite the fact that most of the world visits their search and email services daily. I'm not sure exactly where that critical mass gets hit but I think it's hard to reverse once it happens. Maybe it's something like, "Once your grandparents use a certain program because everyone else does, it's relatively safe to call it 'ingrained'." I know that my grandma had no compulsion to create a MySpace profile even though she constantly [attempts to] check[s] Facebook now, and I also know that it'd be extremely difficult to train her to use a non-Windows interface.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  I'll also add that the day I saw the Facebook logo on my Wal-Mart receipts I knew we were in deep trouble. Some companies use their Facebook page as their only website. This isn't something that just goes away.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  People don't use Windows because it has more compelling features than OS X Ahem. I may not use it because it has more compelling features than OS X, but I did not rule out OS X because of lock-in.
crazygringo 14y ago
But the point is, entrepreneurs are currently fighting on the basis of their ideas, and failing, even though their ideas are better than Craigslist, because Craigslist is winning merely because of network lock-in, not because of innovation. Craigslist disrupted the classifieds industry because it had first-mover advantage in a new medium, the Internet. It now abuses that advantage in order to not innovate or even compete. The market is not working over time -- proof is how everyone complains about how crappy Craigslist is. But a solution, for example, could be something like: legislators could force companies with over, say, 25% market share, that are mainly based on user-generated content, to not be able to sue other companies if those companies re-display information originally input by users, that is publicly visible on the site. This wouldn't force Craigslist to alter its behavior one bit. But it would allow entrepreneurs to actually fight once again on the basis of their ideas, as opposed to whoever had first-mover advantage and subsequent network lock-in.
- asanwal 14y ago
  One - you're grossly oversimplifying why CL won. Friendster had first mover advantage as well. Two - you have way more faith in our legislators than I do. Remember SOPA, PIPA etc from way back in the day. Oh wait - that was a few months ago. Inviting legislators in - be careful what you wish for.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  entrepreneurs are currently fighting on the basis of their ideas, and failing, even though their ideas are better than Craigslist Then their ideas are simply not better enough.
- ericingram 14y ago
  I think this is fuzzy logic, to say the market is not working over time because some people you are close to complain about craigslist. You are ignoring a huge number of people and the vast majority of the market's information (even analysts can't pin all the dynamic in a market). An idea can't "beat" Craigslist. It's the whole of a product and team mixed up with constantly shifting market dynamics and human preferences. It's just way more complicated, and legislation shouldn't even come into the conversation here unless the company is provably violating another's civil or property rights. Are they?

by asanwal 14y ago

cookiecaper 14y ago

>No company dominates forever esp in technology. I'm not so sure (for reasonable values of "forever"). From what I see, once some software hits a critical mass, it's nearly inextricable. Look at Microsoft. Before they became a major player, the dominant OS and computer system would seem to shift every couple of years; Amiga, Commodore, Apple, etc., but once Microsoft became a major player they never really lost their grip. They continue to maintain that grip simply because so many people were familiarized on their systems and so much software was written for those systems. Does anyone really believe that someone looks at OS X and Windows these days and decides that Windows is objectively superior? Most people, even technical people who hate Apple's MO, would admit that OS X is better on its merits alone. The reason that MS has dominated and continues to dominate is because of the software available for the platform. It's all about lock-in. People don't use Windows because it has more compelling features than OS X, they use Windows because they want to play games, buy software off the shelf and know it will run without any problems, or run their company's internal software. Let's take Facebook as another example. For years there was a pretty constant, roughly bi-annual shift in the most prominent "social networking" site; LiveJournal, Friendster, Xanga, etc., until Facebook. Around 2008 Facebook began eating MySpace's lunch and Facebook remains undisputed social networking champ today with no signs of slowage. I'm concerned that Facebook is the new Microsoft -- it has become the de-facto standard, and despite any number of superior features that may be developed in other systems, it doesn't look like anyone is going to be able to challenge Facebook seriously. Some would say that Google was perhaps the most worthy challenger, but even they have failed to really make a dent despite the fact that most of the world visits their search and email services daily. I'm not sure exactly where that critical mass gets hit but I think it's hard to reverse once it happens. Maybe it's something like, "Once your grandparents use a certain program because everyone else does, it's relatively safe to call it 'ingrained'." I know that my grandma had no compulsion to create a MySpace profile even though she constantly [attempts to] check[s] Facebook now, and I also know that it'd be extremely difficult to train her to use a non-Windows interface.

cookiecaper 14y ago
I'll also add that the day I saw the Facebook logo on my Wal-Mart receipts I knew we were in deep trouble. Some companies use their Facebook page as their only website. This isn't something that just goes away.
sliverstorm 14y ago
People don't use Windows because it has more compelling features than OS X Ahem. I may not use it because it has more compelling features than OS X, but I did not rule out OS X because of lock-in.

crazygringo 14y ago

But the point is, entrepreneurs are currently fighting on the basis of their ideas, and failing, even though their ideas are better than Craigslist, because Craigslist is winning merely because of network lock-in, not because of innovation. Craigslist disrupted the classifieds industry because it had first-mover advantage in a new medium, the Internet. It now abuses that advantage in order to not innovate or even compete. The market is not working over time -- proof is how everyone complains about how crappy Craigslist is. But a solution, for example, could be something like: legislators could force companies with over, say, 25% market share, that are mainly based on user-generated content, to not be able to sue other companies if those companies re-display information originally input by users, that is publicly visible on the site. This wouldn't force Craigslist to alter its behavior one bit. But it would allow entrepreneurs to actually fight once again on the basis of their ideas, as opposed to whoever had first-mover advantage and subsequent network lock-in.

asanwal 14y ago
One - you're grossly oversimplifying why CL won. Friendster had first mover advantage as well. Two - you have way more faith in our legislators than I do. Remember SOPA, PIPA etc from way back in the day. Oh wait - that was a few months ago. Inviting legislators in - be careful what you wish for.
sliverstorm 14y ago
entrepreneurs are currently fighting on the basis of their ideas, and failing, even though their ideas are better than Craigslist Then their ideas are simply not better enough.
ericingram 14y ago
I think this is fuzzy logic, to say the market is not working over time because some people you are close to complain about craigslist. You are ignoring a huge number of people and the vast majority of the market's information (even analysts can't pin all the dynamic in a market). An idea can't "beat" Craigslist. It's the whole of a product and team mixed up with constantly shifting market dynamics and human preferences. It's just way more complicated, and legislation shouldn't even come into the conversation here unless the company is provably violating another's civil or property rights. Are they?