Recent searches
Search options
Innovative companies require monopolies so investors have an incentive to fund the high cost of research and development.
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.
UPDATE: Read the full thread before you reply, please.
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.
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.
In this framework, competition, to the extent that it matters, happens *between* markets -- like the mobile operating system competing with the social network, or the rideshare app competing with the job-finding site.
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.
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.
So, I somewhat disagree. 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.
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
@evan my big question about this is: what is the level of competition we need to encourage in order to get those benefits of the market? for example, there's no clear way to say Android is 'beating' iOS, or vice versa. are two options enough?
@austinha I don't know!