Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:27:07 JST Evan Prodromou

   So, I think this is the consensus position in Silicon Valley. Even beyond traditional IP protections like patents, copyright and trademark, innovative companies have something like an obligation to take aggressive action to dominate new markets. They can and should throw hundreds of millions of VC dollars into getting and keeping 75% or more market share. Competition, to the extent that it matters, happens *between* markets -- like mobile operating systems competing with social networks.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:29:44 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     It would be dishonest to say that this economic structure hasn't brought us a lot of value as a society. The companies who have followed this path have created a lot of technology products that have changed our lives.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:32:15 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     And there is a real network effect in having market dominant products. We benefit because other people use the product and improve it with their data, and we benefit because third-party vendors build on top of that single platform.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:34:51 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     In this framework, competition, to the extent that it matters, happens *between* markets -- like mobile operating systems competing with social networks, or rideshare apps competing with job-finding sites.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:38:32 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     I think the problem with this framework is that we as a society don't get to enjoy the fruits of competitive markets: lower prices, better features, more variety, more resilience. Not to mention the ugly, corrosive model of a single corporate entity dominating a particular aspect of our life. I think it may make us complacent about unfair domination in other parts of our lives.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:42:15 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     Could technology companies start and grow if a 75% market share was an unattainable goal? If government agencies would intervene to stop market dominance and especially misuse of that dominance?

     I think they could. I think financial systems would adjust, and I think innovation would continue.

     And I think our society would be better.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:43:01 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     So, I'm a qualified no. I'm willing to concede the advantages of the current system, but I think the price is too high, and I think the alternatives are feasible and preferable.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:45:17 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     Oh, and obviously, I think that network effects can be achieved with competitive markets implementing open standards.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 20:52:19 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     This question came out of the recent antitrust ruling against Google's search dominance.

     https://www.npr.org/2024/08/05/nx-s1-5064624/google-justice-department-antitrust-search

   • Embed this notice
     rndeon (rndeon@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 21:06:14 JST rndeon

     in reply to

     @evan "The companies who have followed this path have created a lot of technology products that have changed our lives."
     Absolutely, 110%
     "this economic structure hasn't brought us a lot of value as a society."
     I'm don't think this part follows from the evidence. I see no reason to doubt that the counter factual wouldn't have also changed our lives and brought value to society. If market dominance was prevented through some mechanism, then the best investment would still be the best investment!

   • Embed this notice
     Denis Faivre (ablivio@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 21:55:34 JST Denis Faivre

     in reply to

     @evan
     Sure, and then, this interesting phenomenon:
     https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 21:55:34 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     • Denis Faivre

     @ablivio https://donotreply.cards/en/do-not-explain-enshittification-to-me

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 21:56:39 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     • Introscopia

     @Introscopia https://cosocial.ca/@evan/112948878062119852

   • Embed this notice
     Introscopia (introscopia@social.coletivos.org)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 21:56:40 JST Introscopia

     in reply to

     @evan The crucial observation here is that the same benefits can be gained from *interoperability*.
     If we had a universal open standard for smartphone apps, for instance, everyone could have access to every app, regardless of their device. Instead we have a duopoly and two separate universes of apps..

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 21:59:48 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     • Stephen Mather

     @smathermather No.

   • Embed this notice
     Stephen Mather (smathermather@mapstodon.space)'s status on Monday, 12-Aug-2024 21:59:49 JST Stephen Mather

     in reply to

     @evan what you seem to be describing is some of the limited public benefit of large corporate bodies that monopolise what might have been a public good. Just because such monopolies still share characteristics of public good, such as shared discovery, economies of scale, capacity to do research that otherwise is hard to fund, doen’t make those structures any more attractive to me. It makes me wonder what more we could have had if we had structured them as publicly controlled and accountable.