Ask HN: Do you feel like whatever makes money is detrimental to everything?

[yqtjnvou]

It wasn't the case many years ago, but now it seems that you have to willing destroy something in order for a business to succeed. I don't know how to explain better but just that whatever does more damage to people is that which gets monetized. You almost never see good products receive the same success as bad or detrimental ones. I feel like anything that is noble, or of noble origin today is left to die by itself whether it is a person, a company, a community.. anything that has morals is being killed, one way or another. Have you guys noticed this?

[JohnFen]

No, I don't feel that way at all. Greed certainly kills everything that cozies up to it, but people and companies can and do succeed without doing that.

[yqtjnvou]

It won't work. Good products don't survive.

If you look at the software industry, you'll notice that the software that generates income is the one that takes more than it gives. Whereas, the one that gives more either dying or is held by open-source devs.

You can also look at diets. If I give the population 3 things to eat for the next 6 months to be lean, they will go to those diets that ease them into it with supplements, and guides, and programs... It's the idea.

[brodouevencode]

No.

This is a fairly nihilist take. There are plenty of markets where you can deliver goods and services that aren't detrimental to anyone.

[yqtjnvou]

But it won't be as successful. We're talking about money. There is much more effort in building quality products than more of the same. For quality, you get 2x competition, rather than just a .. competition when building more of the same.

[brodouevencode]

Okay so you're measuring success in terms of revenue and revenue only?

Look at the most valuable (in terms of market cap) companies that are publicly traded as of 9/16/2024: 1. Apple 2. Microsoft 3. NVidia 4. Alphabet 5. Amazon. They all fundamentally changed their respective markets (and in some ways each others' markets) in mostly good ways.

If this is not what you're talking about please clarify.

[yqtjnvou]

Well, that certainly proves my point.

Apple and Microsoft made a fortune by stealing code and branding it as their own. Later on, both of them targeted a specific segment of users. Apple now consists of its own ecosystem, and they know that once a person gets an apple product, 99% chance he will get another one.. it makes use of psychology. Whereas microsoft simply catered to youths (gaming, and shiny things things) and businesses willing to pay for an unexisting customer support..

I am a computer scientist, and I say this: whatever universities teach you about code, microsoft does the exact opposite. Whatever you think it's normal, right, you deduce it from your teachings, it's always the opposite on their side. Windows is catered to idiots, easy to fool: because after all, how much salesmanship do you need if you have shiny thing to sell? And how much do you need if you sell the intelligent people? Do you see?

NVIDIA followed the game industry and produced over-priced crap, applied handicap to their own devices so as to force people to buy newer models.. And hindered linux progress for decades. Developers of nix what nothing nothing to do with nvidia. And that's not changed - if they change, their revenues drop? Why? Because being fair equals no money..

Amazon uses tactics to lure customers. Once you understand how business work, everything is just so transparent..

All of these share the same principle: beautiful surface, barren and dead beneath it.

Let's take an example: if Microsoft would have been honest, do you think they would be were they are now?

[jqpabc123]

More generally, sustained existence is detrimental to everything. In physics, this is called entropy.

This applies to products, companies and yes, even to people.

In order for you to exist, something has to die or be degraded/deteriorated in some way. The only question is the magnitude of the impact.