3 ms·

"No more people/companies being there simply because they were there first." Except for those there first with huge network effects...

• chrischen 17y ago
  My point was that companies will have to be more legitimate. It will be harder to maintain their dominance by using their stature. Companies will need to stand more on their merit. I did not mean to imply that companies won't be able to use their stature to gain influence though.
  • dsplittgerber 17y ago
    Do you really think companies will have to be more legitimate? In what ways have "Hollywood accounting" or "music biz accounting" (by which I mean the practices which lead to creative people being f*cked over by movie/record companies and earning next to nothing on their intellectual property in stark contrast to the companies) changed in the internet age? The big companies are still maintaining dominance. "1000 true fans" doesn't work for probably about 99 % of artists - it's a make-believe myth perpetuated by the people who want to believe in the power of the internet. Sure, it changed the music biz, but creative people didn't (in general, exceptions prove the rule) feel much difference. There is still no way to adequately pay creative people for what their IP is worth (and adequately pay "support staff" for what they're worth), not in writing, not in music, not in movies.
    • chrischen 17y ago
      The internet lowered the barrier to entry for distribution. This means more entries, and that means more competition. More competition means more volatility. More volatility means less stable goliaths. Less stable goliaths means more bargaining power for the little guys. Artists can switch over to self distribution, or using some sort of alternative.
    • chrischen 17y ago
      Here's an example of cutting out the middle man: http://www.dandywarhols.com/digital-download-store/ http://www.dandywarhols.com/digital-download-store/