One of the problems is that Big Tech as we know it is an outgrowth of
the open source software business.
In software, the absolute worst place for a dollar to end up is at
another software company. You would rather burn the money than see
another software company get it, because they would use it to sue you,
or build network effects to squeeze you out, or whatever.
So open source is a great defensive strategy in software. Turn the
categories _adjacent_ to yours into low-profit commodities.
Keep growing the open source model and you get today's Big Tech.
https://blog.zgp.org/device-drivers-privacy-publishing/
Everything adjacent to their business has to be a commodity. YouTubers,
Amazon sellers/drivers, and of course content sites. Surveillance
marketing, for most, is a means to an end -- make the content brand into
a commodity source of the same eyeballs you get get anywhere, drive the
ad profits to the platform.
The problem with this is that it works great for software, where it's
safe to assume that the company next to you is run by a litigious
[redacted], but it's suboptimal for types of business in which a strong
company adjacent to you is an advantage. (If Google management ran
Chevron, they would give out free clones of the 1970 Plymouth Belvedere
that get 8 MPG, and everyone would be all on about how there is no money
in the car business.)
Ad agencies+brands+content outlets can be an example of positive
feedback from strong companies next to each other, but if you're only
playing one-D chess and commoditizing everything, you miss it.
Don
On 9/16/19 11:42 AM, JClark wrote:
> Having a healthy, trusting society would be good for business, no?
>
> Surveillance in support of manipulation and oppression is not healthy or
> good for business, and yet that is the group-think-supported mirage that
> businesses (and many forms of governance) are acting on. It's a
> hoarder's dilemma.
>
> j.
>
> On 9/16/19 11:18 AM, Doc Searls wrote:
>> We know all those things. What we need to make are better cases that
>> increased personal agency will be good for business.
>>
>> For example, if picos provide a standardized way for customers and
>> companies to learn from each other, that's good for business.
>> Likewise, intentcasting is a better way for a customer to become a
>> qualified lead than for a company to track the person like an animal.
>> Standardized agreements that are good for both sides (such
>> as #NoStalking <http://customercommons.org/home/tools/terms/p2b1/>)
>> can reduce many frictions, including GDPR compliance needs. The list
>> goes on.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 1:57 PM, Adrian Gropper < " target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
>>> <mailto: " target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"> >> wrote:
>>>d
>>> To Doc's second point on what will be good for business, I see these
>>> perceived costs to business:
>>> - Businesses prefer to be in control (reduced uncertainty)
>>> - It’s expensive to give control to the customer (legal costs,
>>> customization costs)
>>> - Who else gets to format the questions? (reduced control)
>>> - Ad-blockers and cookie managers reduce profit (complicated, but
>>> there's little evidence of innovation)
>>>
>>> Do we want to address these directly or do we need to change the
>>> question?
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>> ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.