3 ms·

> This is a testament to the health of our free markets. no, it's not. it's a statement that applies to a monopoly. And software is a monopoly - because each p

by chii 2y ago

> This is a testament to the health of our free markets. no, it's not. it's a statement that applies to a monopoly. And software is a monopoly - because each piece of software is unique enough, that there's no replacement possible.

Buttons840 2y ago
If there are monopolies everywhere, and a lack of competition (which is the definition of a monopoly), how does that not reflect on the health of the free market and competition?
- chii 2y ago
  It's still a free market, and each new entrant attempts to create their software such that it turns into a monopoly.
armchairhacker 2y ago
This specific example, https://jsfiddle.net https://jsfiddle.net, is not a monopoly and has many suitable replacements (e.g. https://livecodes.io/ https://livecodes.io/, https://liveweave.com https://liveweave.com). While in some cases (like YouTube vs alternatives) there are clear advantages to the former, in this case I don't even think that holds (I imagine most people only use JsFiddle to interactively build client-side webpages then share them via a link). That people pay for JsFiddle (although do they? Maybe this is another "unprofitable" company) is a testament to...the fact that humans are not rational actors. Even in a "perfect" (competitive and easy to enter) market, a brand's quality can tank and they'll continue to get sales, despite objectively superior alternatives, simply because of brand recognition. I doubt regulation can solve this. Try to imagine a ban on "enshittification". How do you measure it? How do you enforce it? How much does it cost to measure and enforce it? What if a company has "enshittify" because they're losing money? What if that company deliberately entered the market losing money, to gain brand recognition so they could recoup via "enshittification" later? What about small would-be companies that decide not to enter the market because this regulation is too complex and potential consequences (they think may someday apply to them because it's so complex) are too severe? Instead, I believe the best solution is to try to be a smarter consumer yourself, and convince others to if possible; and if you can, start a company where you deliberately try to maintain quality even though it will sometimes directly contradict increasing profit (because humans aren't rational actors, enshittification won't lose you too many customers; and yet, there are companies that seem to avoid it and still make $millions+).
- 9rx 2y ago
  > This specific example, https://jsfiddle.net https://jsfiddle.net, is not a monopoly and has many suitable replacements (e.g. https://livecodes.io/ https://livecodes.io/, https://liveweave.com https://liveweave.com). The other two don't even have sidebars... They are suitable replacements in the same way that crickets are a suitable replacement for beef: It'll get the job done. But usually the customer wants more – the whole experience – and jsfiddle does have a monopoly over that. Attempts to truly compete against them will be marred with legal challenges.

by chii 2y ago

Buttons840 2y ago

If there are monopolies everywhere, and a lack of competition (which is the definition of a monopoly), how does that not reflect on the health of the free market and competition?

chii 2y ago
It's still a free market, and each new entrant attempts to create their software such that it turns into a monopoly.

armchairhacker 2y ago

This specific example, https://jsfiddle.net https://jsfiddle.net, is not a monopoly and has many suitable replacements (e.g. https://livecodes.io/ https://livecodes.io/, https://liveweave.com https://liveweave.com). While in some cases (like YouTube vs alternatives) there are clear advantages to the former, in this case I don't even think that holds (I imagine most people only use JsFiddle to interactively build client-side webpages then share them via a link). That people pay for JsFiddle (although do they? Maybe this is another "unprofitable" company) is a testament to...the fact that humans are not rational actors. Even in a "perfect" (competitive and easy to enter) market, a brand's quality can tank and they'll continue to get sales, despite objectively superior alternatives, simply because of brand recognition. I doubt regulation can solve this. Try to imagine a ban on "enshittification". How do you measure it? How do you enforce it? How much does it cost to measure and enforce it? What if a company has "enshittify" because they're losing money? What if that company deliberately entered the market losing money, to gain brand recognition so they could recoup via "enshittification" later? What about small would-be companies that decide not to enter the market because this regulation is too complex and potential consequences (they think may someday apply to them because it's so complex) are too severe? Instead, I believe the best solution is to try to be a smarter consumer yourself, and convince others to if possible; and if you can, start a company where you deliberately try to maintain quality even though it will sometimes directly contradict increasing profit (because humans aren't rational actors, enshittification won't lose you too many customers; and yet, there are companies that seem to avoid it and still make $millions+).

9rx 2y ago
> This specific example, https://jsfiddle.net https://jsfiddle.net, is not a monopoly and has many suitable replacements (e.g. https://livecodes.io/ https://livecodes.io/, https://liveweave.com https://liveweave.com). The other two don't even have sidebars... They are suitable replacements in the same way that crickets are a suitable replacement for beef: It'll get the job done. But usually the customer wants more – the whole experience – and jsfiddle does have a monopoly over that. Attempts to truly compete against them will be marred with legal challenges.