|
|
|
|
|
|
by allannienhuis
2532 days ago
|
|
|
Sorry to say, but it seems your moral compass isn't working correctly. Not sure its productive at all to continue this conversation with someone who's understanding of that fundamental premise is so completely different than pretty much anyone I know. Hopefully that's something you'll think about. |
|
|
Look, luddism is bad for everybody in a long term. We saw riots against Uber in some country where people turn cars upside down or burn them. It hurts their earnings and they feel it's unfair. And you may say it's immoral for Uber to do so. But what they did is simple. They identified multiple huge inefficiencies in that market: pricing, negotiation, checkout, reputation. Solved it and found a way to profit from it. And that will eventually happen at every corner where huge inefficiency exists due to mere lack of communication and price negotiation. And yes, prices in most cases will have to go down and become less disperse and some won't like it at all. But that's just competition reenabled by technology.
Is it immoral? I don't think so, because net effect is positive. Is that your right to scam tourist 10x more for airport-hotel trip or take 2x longer route just to earn a bit more? Technically yes, but who would indorse such behaviour? You don't like the price? Don't take that client. Platform is systemically lowering prices or violates existing regulations? Vote for better regulations, vote for enforcing those that already exist. Platform is fundamentally broken? Well, make a better one. Technically, it's not that hard, Uber is one of the most replicated business ideas at the moment.
And on that guy complaining that oh those competitors who are scraping their prices. So they're scraping each other and protecting their websites from being scraped by each other? So at the end they all have competitors information, but pumped lots of resources in scraping, protection and trying to serve content to both bots and clients? Wow, what a tragedy. What a horrible person would want it to stop. If that's it, they could just as simply pick up a phone and agree to share that data between them, because in the end outcome will be the same, minus resources wasted on arms race.
Or better, from the beginning make your data machine-friendly. Because eventually, they'll do that. Eventually somebody like Google or Amazon or some other big company will find an incentive to make them gradually and willingly share and structure that data. And somebody will find a way and resources to integrate that data into reusable knowledge graphs and somewhere along the way create a positive feedback loop. And somebody will profit from that huge. Consumers will surely benefit, that somebody will, data-donor companies that adapt will do.
And don't forget there's some progress in ML, automated decision making and all that. I personally as a customer would love to have best prices, objective products comparison with zero interaction with multiple whacky small vendors websites. I'd better have smth like Siri do that for me.
One way or another, it's happening. Small businesses have little to say here if anything. My unpopular opinion was to recognise that process, do something to stop wasting resources on war between scrapers and anti-scrapers and hopefully avoid appearance of another single monopolist from solving the problem if we don't. Because if we don't we'll just have another few years of HN headlines about how bad that X unicorn company is to somebody.
Now what's wrong with that?