4 ms·

Do you think that was really the tradeoff? How are we better off as a society if Apple, Google, Samsung don't put powerful, usable smartphones in the hands of a

Do you think that was really the tradeoff? How are we better off as a society if Apple, Google, Samsung don't put powerful, usable smartphones in the hands of a few hundred million people? The beauty of "CapitalismStan" (God, even Tom Friedman would too embarrassed to coin that one...) is that each and every one of us gets to decide if parting with $200 and a monthly $80 bill is worth the benefit. I certainly think it would be a bargain at twice the price.

smacktoward 13y ago
The entire point of my comment was that the total price to society of the device can go well beyond the "$200 and a monthly $80 bill" that the individual pays to acquire it. > How are we better off as a society if Apple, Google, Samsung don't put powerful, usable smartphones in the hands of a few hundred million people? Respectfully, you're again arguing the merits of ends without discussing any means. Making the argument into "smartphone or no smartphone?" is like asking "candy or no candy?" Which do you think people will choose? But even free candy has costs; put the person who receives it on a scale a week later and you'll see them. One can certainly point to societal costs that the information economy has imposed that go beyond the costs of individual products. When Marc Andreesen says that "software is eating the world," what he's saying is that it takes wealth that used to be held by people outside Silicon Valley -- travel agents, booksellers, and recording artists, to name a few -- and transferring it to people inside Silicon Valley. And since software requires no human intervention to do the same thing over and over again, the number of people who are on the receiving end of this wealth transfer is naturally much smaller than those who are on the other; once you've got an algorithm for picking the best airline flight, say, money that used to provide a living for tens of thousands of travel agents can all flow instead to one guy -- the guy who owns the algorithm. So that one guy becomes crazy rich, while the travel agents lose their livelihood. Does the inegalitarian result of that wealth transfer outweigh the benefit to society at large that the algorithm provides? I'm guessing from your comments that you would say it does not, and I would probably agree with you on that. That's a more complicated question than whether or not people would prefer travel sites or no travel site, but it at least attempts to take into account the costs such sites create beyond what the individual user pays for them.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  That's a useful argument to have. I'd respond that all that wealth wasn't "transferred" to the SV capitalist. It was generated because millions of people saved a few dollars on airfare. Some of those savings went to the capitalist, but they can't all have: His price then wouldn't be any better than the friendly travel agent down the street. The rest of those savings stayed with the consumer, who can now afford that much more air travel or that many more organic carrots or whatever. In aggregate, when it becomes cheaper and easier to do X, there's more money or time to spend on X or Y or Z, and let the most valuable products and services win. But all of this is somewhat beside the point. This article doesn't try to spur these kinds of discussions. If it were trying, it wouldn't use phrases like "fat miserable drooling zombies". It's agitprop, and there are much better uses of HN readers' time.

smacktoward 13y ago

The entire point of my comment was that the total price to society of the device can go well beyond the "$200 and a monthly $80 bill" that the individual pays to acquire it. > How are we better off as a society if Apple, Google, Samsung don't put powerful, usable smartphones in the hands of a few hundred million people? Respectfully, you're again arguing the merits of ends without discussing any means. Making the argument into "smartphone or no smartphone?" is like asking "candy or no candy?" Which do you think people will choose? But even free candy has costs; put the person who receives it on a scale a week later and you'll see them. One can certainly point to societal costs that the information economy has imposed that go beyond the costs of individual products. When Marc Andreesen says that "software is eating the world," what he's saying is that it takes wealth that used to be held by people outside Silicon Valley -- travel agents, booksellers, and recording artists, to name a few -- and transferring it to people inside Silicon Valley. And since software requires no human intervention to do the same thing over and over again, the number of people who are on the receiving end of this wealth transfer is naturally much smaller than those who are on the other; once you've got an algorithm for picking the best airline flight, say, money that used to provide a living for tens of thousands of travel agents can all flow instead to one guy -- the guy who owns the algorithm. So that one guy becomes crazy rich, while the travel agents lose their livelihood. Does the inegalitarian result of that wealth transfer outweigh the benefit to society at large that the algorithm provides? I'm guessing from your comments that you would say it does not, and I would probably agree with you on that. That's a more complicated question than whether or not people would prefer travel sites or no travel site, but it at least attempts to take into account the costs such sites create beyond what the individual user pays for them.

twoodfin 13y ago
That's a useful argument to have. I'd respond that all that wealth wasn't "transferred" to the SV capitalist. It was generated because millions of people saved a few dollars on airfare. Some of those savings went to the capitalist, but they can't all have: His price then wouldn't be any better than the friendly travel agent down the street. The rest of those savings stayed with the consumer, who can now afford that much more air travel or that many more organic carrots or whatever. In aggregate, when it becomes cheaper and easier to do X, there's more money or time to spend on X or Y or Z, and let the most valuable products and services win. But all of this is somewhat beside the point. This article doesn't try to spur these kinds of discussions. If it were trying, it wouldn't use phrases like "fat miserable drooling zombies". It's agitprop, and there are much better uses of HN readers' time.