4 ms·

Centralization is a law of nature. It allows for more efficiency through economies of scale. It's not unthinkable that Facebook will be the top destination 20

Centralization is a law of nature. It allows for more efficiency through economies of scale. It's not unthinkable that Facebook will be the top destination 20 years from now if they are (1) successful with internet.org and (2) first-to-market with a viable virtual reality product.

amelius 11y ago
> Centralization is a law of nature. It allows for more efficiency through economies of scale. However, as technology progresses, we might reach a point where "distributed" can be sufficiently efficient.
lectrick 11y ago
> if they are (1) successful with internet.org no self-respecting third-world intellectual is going to be satisfied by a catered whitelist of websites they can access. to me this seems like an attempt to repeat what we did with confusing "the web" with "the internet" by having third world people confuse "facebook" with "the web"
- roymurdock 11y ago
  Indonesians surveyed by Galpaya told her that they didn’t use the internet. But in focus groups, they would talk enthusiastically about how much time they spent on Facebook. Galpaya, a researcher (and now CEO) with LIRNEasia, a think tank, called Rohan Samarajiva, her boss at the time, to tell him what she had discovered. “It seemed that in their minds, the Internet did not exist; only Facebook,” he concluded. [1] It doesn't matter what intellectuals are satisfied with, the internet (like TV and Radio) will be driven by what the mass-market consumer wants. If they can get all they need from Facebook for free (running a business & talking to friends and family), then why pay more to develop a network that they don't want? [1] http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-ide...
  - dreamfactory2 11y ago
    This is even true with SE Asian web developers - if there isn't an active Facebook community, a technology can't get traction there
  - lectrick 11y ago
    wow. so what I predicted has basically already happened. sigh.
- pjc50 11y ago
  This depends very much on whether the local facebook censorship/real names policy makes it hard to post political content. If it doesn't, then it may well be popular.
- kristianc 11y ago
  What specific expertise do you have with what self-respecting third world intellectuals want?
FilterSweep 11y ago
Hardly a law of nature. Its a school of thought. Centralization leads to other inefficiencies such as Economic deadweight loss, and a lack of competition. The cartel/monopolist economy, as created by Centralization, has it's own issues. Does Economies of scale outweigh the economic surpluses gained from a more competitive economy? Well, that's something one should ask an ivory tower Economist. See also: Google's increasingly long list of discontinued products, many of which were acquires from burgeoning young businesses.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  Not making any value judgments. I agree that centralization leads to problems (from the consumer's viewpoint) of collusion, lack of choice, etc. That's why the government has a duty to intervene when monopolies threaten to burden consumers - a competing law of nature called decentralization through regulation. Ask an economist and you'll get different normative answers of how we should craft policy, but the positive answer will be the same across the board: it has happened with clothing manufacturing, publishing, radio, TV, food production, etc. and is now happening with the internet. A nascent and initially fragmented medium/industry attracts investment and develops standards; large conglomerations begin to form and M&A smaller players to gain market share, leading to a saturated market of heavy-weight players.
  - sbov 11y ago
    This would be ignoring history though. The concept of "being online" started centralized with heavy weight players - AOL, prodigy, compuserve, etc.
    - nostrademons 11y ago
      Also virtualization - VMWare started out as the dominant player, but then Xen came out, which first led to AWS becoming dominant but now results in a number of cloud hosting and VPS providers, many of which are more cost-effective than AWS. And PCs - it started out as a decentralized market between Apple, Commodore, Tandy, Atari, Osborne, etc, but then centralized under IBM before being decentralized again with IBM clones like Dell, Compaq, etc. That in turn forced the centralization of the OS market under Microsoft (driving out Apple, CP/M, Acorn, Atari) and microprocessors under Intel (driving out Motorola and MOS technologies). I think it's more accurate to say that the point of centralization moves up and down the value chain based on technological developments, market deals, and corporate strategy. When things get too centralized, a savvy entrepreneur will come in as a small-time complement, then find a way to encourage competition and commoditize his complements, riding the wave to a very prosperous monopoly. When competition becomes too intense in those markets, the bigger players will start eating the smaller players, and eventually the market consolidates.
Dn_Ab 11y ago
In nature, decentralized networks are more the norm. You find them in neural, gene, protein and metabolic networks. You find them in mycorrhizal networks of forests and in various self-organizing systems. Food webs, IIRC are even more random, as far from centralized as you can get. These networks with small world properties strike a highly pragmatic balance. They are far more robust to insult when compared to centralized networks (though not so much as random) while having much more efficient propogation of information than in more random networks.

amelius 11y ago

> Centralization is a law of nature. It allows for more efficiency through economies of scale. However, as technology progresses, we might reach a point where "distributed" can be sufficiently efficient.

lectrick 11y ago

> if they are (1) successful with internet.org no self-respecting third-world intellectual is going to be satisfied by a catered whitelist of websites they can access. to me this seems like an attempt to repeat what we did with confusing "the web" with "the internet" by having third world people confuse "facebook" with "the web"

roymurdock 11y ago
Indonesians surveyed by Galpaya told her that they didn’t use the internet. But in focus groups, they would talk enthusiastically about how much time they spent on Facebook. Galpaya, a researcher (and now CEO) with LIRNEasia, a think tank, called Rohan Samarajiva, her boss at the time, to tell him what she had discovered. “It seemed that in their minds, the Internet did not exist; only Facebook,” he concluded. [1] It doesn't matter what intellectuals are satisfied with, the internet (like TV and Radio) will be driven by what the mass-market consumer wants. If they can get all they need from Facebook for free (running a business & talking to friends and family), then why pay more to develop a network that they don't want? [1] http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-ide...
- dreamfactory2 11y ago
  This is even true with SE Asian web developers - if there isn't an active Facebook community, a technology can't get traction there
- lectrick 11y ago
  wow. so what I predicted has basically already happened. sigh.
pjc50 11y ago
This depends very much on whether the local facebook censorship/real names policy makes it hard to post political content. If it doesn't, then it may well be popular.
kristianc 11y ago
What specific expertise do you have with what self-respecting third world intellectuals want?

FilterSweep 11y ago

Hardly a law of nature. Its a school of thought. Centralization leads to other inefficiencies such as Economic deadweight loss, and a lack of competition. The cartel/monopolist economy, as created by Centralization, has it's own issues. Does Economies of scale outweigh the economic surpluses gained from a more competitive economy? Well, that's something one should ask an ivory tower Economist. See also: Google's increasingly long list of discontinued products, many of which were acquires from burgeoning young businesses.

roymurdock 11y ago
Not making any value judgments. I agree that centralization leads to problems (from the consumer's viewpoint) of collusion, lack of choice, etc. That's why the government has a duty to intervene when monopolies threaten to burden consumers - a competing law of nature called decentralization through regulation. Ask an economist and you'll get different normative answers of how we should craft policy, but the positive answer will be the same across the board: it has happened with clothing manufacturing, publishing, radio, TV, food production, etc. and is now happening with the internet. A nascent and initially fragmented medium/industry attracts investment and develops standards; large conglomerations begin to form and M&A smaller players to gain market share, leading to a saturated market of heavy-weight players.
- sbov 11y ago
  This would be ignoring history though. The concept of "being online" started centralized with heavy weight players - AOL, prodigy, compuserve, etc.
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    Also virtualization - VMWare started out as the dominant player, but then Xen came out, which first led to AWS becoming dominant but now results in a number of cloud hosting and VPS providers, many of which are more cost-effective than AWS. And PCs - it started out as a decentralized market between Apple, Commodore, Tandy, Atari, Osborne, etc, but then centralized under IBM before being decentralized again with IBM clones like Dell, Compaq, etc. That in turn forced the centralization of the OS market under Microsoft (driving out Apple, CP/M, Acorn, Atari) and microprocessors under Intel (driving out Motorola and MOS technologies). I think it's more accurate to say that the point of centralization moves up and down the value chain based on technological developments, market deals, and corporate strategy. When things get too centralized, a savvy entrepreneur will come in as a small-time complement, then find a way to encourage competition and commoditize his complements, riding the wave to a very prosperous monopoly. When competition becomes too intense in those markets, the bigger players will start eating the smaller players, and eventually the market consolidates.

Dn_Ab 11y ago

In nature, decentralized networks are more the norm. You find them in neural, gene, protein and metabolic networks. You find them in mycorrhizal networks of forests and in various self-organizing systems. Food webs, IIRC are even more random, as far from centralized as you can get. These networks with small world properties strike a highly pragmatic balance. They are far more robust to insult when compared to centralized networks (though not so much as random) while having much more efficient propogation of information than in more random networks.