|
|
|
|
|
|
by porridgeraisin
968 days ago
|
|
|
Exactly. Hypothesis 2: this is why you have a lot of anti-capitalistic talk among tech folk. The whole concept of "anyone can replicate my product, but I got here first, so i have to use lock-ins and other ethically questionable things if I want to keep my spot" is antithetical to the goals of capitalism i.e companies out-competing each other constantly, leading to better and better products. The equilibrium with monopolies that is possible under capitalism is reached really, really easily in tech. Because being a monopoly/locking-in, not open sourcing, etc, is the only way you can be a big tech company. In my opinion, industries with low barriers of entry are fundamentally incompatible with - atleast the current flavor of - capitalism, if you use user harm as the metric. |
|
|
Agreed. Tech is exemplary here, and so is all media since it went digital: when natural barriers to entry are low, the first thing companies do is to establish artificial ones, whether by abusing the legal system, or by piling up so much marketing bullshit it creates new barriers ex nihilo, right there in the minds of consumers.