Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation

Re:Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commerc... by Ajedi32 on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @12:15PM (#25848981)

Yes, that was a simplified example. Maybe ACME Hotdogs uses the money they saved to drop their prices, but Hotdogs Inc. instead decides to use it to open stores in more locations, Big Food Corp. decides to use it to pay their executives large bonuses, and Weiner Dogs LLC decides to spend more on R&D to make a tastier hot dog.

In the end, consumers will decide which of those approaches results in the better value for them and reward that company with more of their business. And regardless of whether that choice results in a cheaper hotdog, a tastier one, or just a more convenient location to buy it from, they're better off (wealthier) for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commerc... by Chris2048 on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @02:58PM (#25851172)

If you local cinema only stocks one hotdog brand, consumers don't get a lot of choice. The target of any corp, and the market ideal, is a virtual monopoly - where consumers don't get choice, the market optimises for this at the upper levels.

"patent trolling" is a classic example of how the market is not always consumer friendly - the approach of suing your competitors is intended to prevent consumers ever having the choice of doing business with them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commerc... by Ajedi32 on Monday January 25, 2021 @11:20AM (#25904934)

> If you local cinema only stocks one hotdog brand, consumers don't get a lot of choice.

Sure they do; they can choose to visit a different cinema, or to stop visiting the cinema entirely. They probably won't, but that's not because they don't have a choice, but because "this cinema doesn't stock the type of hot dogs I want" is a rather trivial concern when it comes to choosing what cinema to visit.

> "patent trolling" is a classic example of how the market is not always consumer friendly

I think it's rather unfair to use government intervention (the patent system) as an example of a market failure.

In general, anytime there's a large centralized authority controlling what the market is allowed to do (whether that authority be a government or a corporate monopoly) there will be inefficiencies.

[ Parent | on HN ]