Your argument seems to be akin to "History shows that every tyrant who ever existed has died." Yes but if one or more new tyrants has been born for every one that died, what consolation is it? Different corporate overlords isn't the same as no corporate overlords.
Go back to the pre-industrial era, and you own essentially nothing unless you're royalty. Move forward into the mid-19th century and the picture has changed - bankers and railroad barons have grown powerful enough to assert some control over governments. By the 20th century you have a whole array of public services(water/phone/gas/electric). And today, the big discussions are mostly over information businesses.
Example: Even though Apple, Amazon and Netflix have done a lot to usurp the nature of retail and media publishing and can be seen as "tyrants" of their respective markets, they've given up control in other ways; you have considerable freedom to publish and distribute products through their services. They still curate, but not extensively. And, on balance, they offer a better profit/consumer value ratio.
The overall picture adds up to something more complicated than "new tyrants, same as the old" - the quest for profit is increasingly causing them to battle each other, as they keep stepping on each other's toes, and that's forcing a kind of competition that was unimaginable in previous eras. It's still imperfect because some elements of the system will occasionally try to take the rest hostage(e.g. banking, recently), but some amazing things are happening regardless - Twitter revolutions, anyone?
Well, a free enterprise system is just that: one in which consumers have choices. The fact that Google dominates search, or that Apple dominates mobile devices, or that Microsoft dominates desktop computing hardly limits my "freedom" in any real sense of that word and, in the meantime, I will gladly use Google over AltaVista, Apple over a Brand X music player, and Microsoft over WordStar for the benefits I derive from those offerings. In other words, I don't have a problem with a company making proprietary offerings if such offerings give me better value than what otherwise exists and, if I don't like them, I don't have to deal with them.
So, I feel I have my freedom today, just as I did years ago when IBM dominated enterprise computing, and that is why I am (as I said above) quite relaxed about the idea that private corporate interests can control and dominate their respective fields of activity. So long as no government entrenches them permanently as monopolies no matter what their virtues, the activities of Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. are entirely consistent with a free system of economic activity.
If you would abolish the idea of market-leading companies in a free enterprise system, what would you replace that with? In other words, how are you using the word "freedom" and "tyrant" in this context? These are genuine questions because, apart from your use of the term "tyrant" for rhetorical effect, I don't understand where you are going with this idea.
> The fact that Google dominates search, or that Apple dominates mobile
> devices, or that Microsoft dominates desktop computing hardly limits my
> "freedom" in any real sense of that word
Limiting freedom doesn't apply solely to the freedom to make a choice, it also applies to limiting the options one has to choose between. When AT&T lobbies the government to allow them to refuse access to their last-mile lines to 3rd-party ISPs, then AT&T is limiting my freedom b/c now I have fewer choices in ISPs in my area.
Freedom means you do what you like with things you own. It does not mean every market should (or will) organize itself so as to maximally benefit you.
As for AT&T: of course. Behind every good monopoly is the government (and then they're protected by law -- and the threats of murder, blackmail and kidnapping for violation).
But I think that one can articulate the problem of abusive monopolies as being narrower than simply companies leading the market.
The distinction between rent-seekers and profit-seekers is rough but it's a little closer to the original complaint. We can define abusive monopolies as companies which have acquired not just a strong position in the market but also a legal or force-based cudgel to drive off all serious competitors. Telcos having a monopoly on civic rights-of-way is an example of this. Companies using software patents to scare-away competitor are another example of this.
One problem in dealing with this situation is that in a fair, "commodity" market, margins tend to become "paper thin". Thus there's a lot of capital out there chasing opportunities to get a choke-hold on one or another markets. I don't have any idea what to do about that.
Yes , we live in time of rapid technological change , but how soon do you see an internet level change affecting the industry ? and aren't today's companies more aware of the innovator's dillema and can handle disruptive change somewhat better(microsoft has done quite a good job at this)?
Furthermore, it's almost without exception that these technologies have weakened big companies, especially in the software industry. Cheap computing power that you don't even have to manage, a massive ecosystem of open source code, and powerful communication tools are available to anybody now. Big companies rely on economies of scale to offset the costs of organization. It's becoming increasingly difficult for them to win in an industry with almost no barrier to entry.
You can look at netflix , amazon , google and apple and the ISP's. each have a huge competitive barrier : wheter it's huge customer base , big data , big "relationships" , huge brand , huge brain trusts, large manufacturing volume, network effects, large costly infrasturtuce or a very very efficent logistical system. those are things that costs alot of money and are not easy to scale.
And if all that doesn't work , in many cases you can just buy your future disruptor.
Amazon operate in every one of those markets, and they dominate in a couple.
And yet it is also true that the end-users can have a significant amount of influence in how quickly the marketplace provides more choice and more open solutions. Most immediately they can choose the more open solution instead of the one that provides more of a walled garden (such as selecting android over the iphone). They can, at least in less capital intensive fields, choose to enter themselves and provide a more open solution (as certain Linux providers have done). In the extreme, they can lobby for legislation or regulation to require or at least support openness and choice. While I generally support a very light regulatory touch, there are some rare and extreme cases where it is appropriate.
While everything you say is true, those who wish to resist walled gardens and proprietary traps can choose to do so in an active and conscious way, rather than merely waiting for the inevitable (yet sometimes slow) march of technology to bring this openness.
Apple does this for two reasons. The first is, giving developers these tools outside of Apple's control, is beneficial to the platform. Apple wants as much developer focus as it can. The second reason, and probably more important, is that by having unrestricted app access, Apple provides the best solution for all of its customers. More apps means happier customers.
The app store doesn't let you make malicious or pornographic apps. The former doesn't benefit anyone, and the latter while a silly restriction is easily circumvented by using the web based platform.
Apple's walled garden is more a marketing slogan of Apple's competitors than anything else. Apple really doesn't care, because what apple does, is focus on the users. (which is why iOS is an open platform.)
Frankly, if your ideas were superior, you wouldn't need to rely on lies and censorship to propagate them.
This tells us everything we need to know about the lack of integrity of the average HN poster.
I find the level of dishonesty quite disgusting.
How could Apple possibly prevent a sufficiently covertly malicious application from entering the app store?
The unstated premise of the piece seems to be that, as technology matures, control over it becomes consolidated in fewer hands, each of whom has a proprietary interest to limit its ultimate use in order to serve its short-term profit interests. Thus, service providers charge high roaming fees and structure their charges to serve their interests at the expense of consumers while apps that are offered come increasingly within walled gardens where proprietary overlords dictate all terms.
I believe this is all true but disagree as to its alleged threat to our future as tech consumers. Human innovation in a free enterprise system tends to take on a force of its own that overwhelms individual corporate interests. If this were not the case, then our current overlords would be Barnes & Noble (for books), Tower Records (for music), Blockbuster Video (for video rentals), Western Union (for instant messaging), IBM (for enterprise computing), and so on. These were yesterday's corporate giants and they each declined in their influence specifically because they failed to anticipate key trends in technology and thus became laggards instead of leaders.
Telco service providers, of course, have incredible power and will use that power to further their particular narrow interests if at all possible. This has resulted in a variety of frustrating user experiences. Even here, however, technology will tend to outrun their long-term ability to dictate terms. Those who are old enough will readily remember the outrageous expense, while traveling, of "long distance" charges, of the scarcity of reliable phone systems in many countries, and of the difficulty often incurred while wanting to make a call of trying to find an available phone booth while on the road. We are worlds removed from that old environment today owing to amazing advances in technology, and we as consumers are far better off than before in spite of the hassles, inconveniences, and expenses we experience with our service providers.
I resist walled gardens and proprietary traps in the marketplace as much as the next guy but these too do not threaten my choices in the long run. I may or may not like what Apple does but Apple will not control the future any more than the companies listed above. Corporate control in this sense is powerful but ephemeral - absent government restrictions that give it quasi-monopoly status, it lasts only as long as a company serves important needs of consumers. Once that slips, so too does the corporate dominance (over the long term). I may be wrong about this but, given what I have observed over my lifetime, I take a much more relaxed view of it than does the author of this piece.