3 ms·

Can you give examples of things that wouldn't, theoretically, be better if "combined into a non-profit, shared single source?" The whole problem is the incenti

Can you give examples of things that wouldn't, theoretically, be better if "combined into a non-profit, shared single source?" The whole problem is the incentive to innovate diminishes greatly for non-profit, single sources for most products. Thus, we have capitalism and "different commercial vendor silos" for most things, including maps.

ska 12y ago
I think you are oversimplifying. After all, the map data isn't really the product here. But you are right the tricky thing would be to maintain an incentive structure. Waving hands wildly: imagine a mapping database that was owned by the government, free to use for non-profit uses, and licenseable by corporate entities. Here's the twist though, the license fees are proportional to the government doing a certain amount of upkeep/improvement on the database, and you are free to provide the same work block instead of a fee. That way, if you can do it cheaper, it will save you money up front and if your competitor can't do that, it's a competitive advantage. I haven't thought about this model carefully just pointing out it isn't necessarily as black and white as you suggest...
ris 12y ago
Walk out onto the street and a huge number of things you see will be public, because people have decided that's the best way to do things. Roads, police, emergency services, a lot of infrastructure... It's easy to forget what an enabler this is what with all the noise businesses make about themselves.
dalke 12y ago
It's hard to imagine shared single source competitive sports teams which are more engaging than having multiple teams with (nearly) independent player pools. It does happen at schools, say, where the players for each team in P.E. class are picked at random, but fans get engaged with the team identity and the individual players, and team abilities depend in part on long-term shared practice. It's hard to believe that the space programs of the 1960s would have been better had the Soviet and U.S. programs joined forces for a single space program; also, obviously neither space program was based on the direct market forces of capitalism. The military is also not run under a capitalistic basis, and the concept of "single source" for a NATO or UN force is meaningless. It's even a stretch to say that a combined US Army/Navy/Marine operation is a "single source" given the inter-service rivalries. I'm not convinced that a single world government with its own military would be better.

ska 12y ago

I think you are oversimplifying. After all, the map data isn't really the product here. But you are right the tricky thing would be to maintain an incentive structure. Waving hands wildly: imagine a mapping database that was owned by the government, free to use for non-profit uses, and licenseable by corporate entities. Here's the twist though, the license fees are proportional to the government doing a certain amount of upkeep/improvement on the database, and you are free to provide the same work block instead of a fee. That way, if you can do it cheaper, it will save you money up front and if your competitor can't do that, it's a competitive advantage. I haven't thought about this model carefully just pointing out it isn't necessarily as black and white as you suggest...

ris 12y ago

Walk out onto the street and a huge number of things you see will be public, because people have decided that's the best way to do things. Roads, police, emergency services, a lot of infrastructure... It's easy to forget what an enabler this is what with all the noise businesses make about themselves.

dalke 12y ago

It's hard to imagine shared single source competitive sports teams which are more engaging than having multiple teams with (nearly) independent player pools. It does happen at schools, say, where the players for each team in P.E. class are picked at random, but fans get engaged with the team identity and the individual players, and team abilities depend in part on long-term shared practice. It's hard to believe that the space programs of the 1960s would have been better had the Soviet and U.S. programs joined forces for a single space program; also, obviously neither space program was based on the direct market forces of capitalism. The military is also not run under a capitalistic basis, and the concept of "single source" for a NATO or UN force is meaningless. It's even a stretch to say that a combined US Army/Navy/Marine operation is a "single source" given the inter-service rivalries. I'm not convinced that a single world government with its own military would be better.