In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All

Re:In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All by jjoonathan on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @07:01PM (#10815251)

The threat of possible disruption from an uncertain direction 10 years down the line is of a very different nature than the threat posed by direct, immediate competition. Why do you think it's "lazy" to find one type of competition less desirable and then notice and complain when certain markets seem to consistently gravitate towards it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All by mwsherman on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @07:50PM (#10815461)

I don’t think what you’re describing is wrong. But a belief that something is a natural monopoly causes us to make policy choices based on a flawed assumption. Flawed choices about the inevitability of a monopoly tend to entrench same.

E.g. our municipal broadband monopolies trace back to a belief that wireline phone and TV can only be monopolies. And maybe it’s true! But we might have chosen differently, had we not assumed it a natural outcome.

We might have assumed that wireless is a natural monopoly. Gladly, we didn’t. (Though spectrum policy can be more competitive.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All by marklgr on Thursday December 31, 2015 @04:09AM (#10816893)

This is not about inevitability and immortality of monopolies, but their likelihood and the detrimental effects they bring on while they exists. Both can be pretty high in some domains, so it is worthwhile to think about it, to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All by jjoonathan on Thursday December 31, 2015 @07:42AM (#10817370)

> But we might have chosen differently

Please elaborate on what you mean by "chosen."

[ Parent | on HN ]