>>Unfortunately most of us are quite powerless to stop it otherwise.
I apologize in advance for the slaughter of some sacred cows.
We are not powerless, we are just being practical. But our short term interests are getting in the way of our long term interests at the moment.
Take for example patio11's failed startup which tried to help companies hire software engineers. Now, I don't really know all the reasons it failed, nor do I care. But I will definitely note that right around the same time, he was also explaining how every software developer was a sucker if they didn't go and work for one of the big tech companies. (I am sure it was more nuanced, but my point is directionally correct). The saying goes that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and I don't for a minute doubt patio11's intentions. But the weird side effect of his own advice was that developers were simply preferring to spend extra time trying to clear the big tech interviews rather than cracking some kind of CTF game. In other words, he was doing everything in his power to make sure potential clients of his company were going to find it much harder to hire said engineers. If patio11's goal is to actually increase the GDP of the internet, he can start by educating everyone about the major problems being caused by the tech monopolies.
Let me also address pg's intentions. Take a look at the "successful" YCombinator startups. Is there any company in there which isn't trying to grow at the expense of doing what is right by their customers? Now take the peripheral side effects of the existence of the YCombinator ecosystem. Overhyping of Silicon Valley. Talent cluster formation, to the absolute detriment of local tech companies in other regions. Capital is basically gushing into a very small geographic region, distorting anything and everything in sight (e.g. real estate prices).
Last but not least, I would say that Big Tech got much stronger because of the 2008 financial crisis (easy access to cheap capital to the survivors), plus the stock buyback policies of Trump (it is easier to buy back stock than to actually innovate). Whether or not you agree with the macro-economic policies, the general observation is very true. Big Tech profited enormously because of the financial crisis, and were "bailed out" as a side effect. Here I refer to "bailed out" as a simple metaphor for having the ability to buy out competition very easily (instead of having to actually compete). Have you noticed that none of the Big Tech companies are actually going after the already consolidated markets of other Big Tech companies anymore? That is, Microsoft isn't going after YouTube. Google isn't really going after Windows. Facebook isn't going after search. Amazon isn't trying to build a social network. The oligopoly not only suits them just fine, it also prevents unnecessary bleeding of capital which can instead be preserved for the next financial crisis, so they can repeat the same playbook.
I apologize in advance for the slaughter of some sacred cows.
We are not powerless, we are just being practical. But our short term interests are getting in the way of our long term interests at the moment.
Take for example patio11's failed startup which tried to help companies hire software engineers. Now, I don't really know all the reasons it failed, nor do I care. But I will definitely note that right around the same time, he was also explaining how every software developer was a sucker if they didn't go and work for one of the big tech companies. (I am sure it was more nuanced, but my point is directionally correct). The saying goes that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and I don't for a minute doubt patio11's intentions. But the weird side effect of his own advice was that developers were simply preferring to spend extra time trying to clear the big tech interviews rather than cracking some kind of CTF game. In other words, he was doing everything in his power to make sure potential clients of his company were going to find it much harder to hire said engineers. If patio11's goal is to actually increase the GDP of the internet, he can start by educating everyone about the major problems being caused by the tech monopolies.
Let me also address pg's intentions. Take a look at the "successful" YCombinator startups. Is there any company in there which isn't trying to grow at the expense of doing what is right by their customers? Now take the peripheral side effects of the existence of the YCombinator ecosystem. Overhyping of Silicon Valley. Talent cluster formation, to the absolute detriment of local tech companies in other regions. Capital is basically gushing into a very small geographic region, distorting anything and everything in sight (e.g. real estate prices).
Last but not least, I would say that Big Tech got much stronger because of the 2008 financial crisis (easy access to cheap capital to the survivors), plus the stock buyback policies of Trump (it is easier to buy back stock than to actually innovate). Whether or not you agree with the macro-economic policies, the general observation is very true. Big Tech profited enormously because of the financial crisis, and were "bailed out" as a side effect. Here I refer to "bailed out" as a simple metaphor for having the ability to buy out competition very easily (instead of having to actually compete). Have you noticed that none of the Big Tech companies are actually going after the already consolidated markets of other Big Tech companies anymore? That is, Microsoft isn't going after YouTube. Google isn't really going after Windows. Facebook isn't going after search. Amazon isn't trying to build a social network. The oligopoly not only suits them just fine, it also prevents unnecessary bleeding of capital which can instead be preserved for the next financial crisis, so they can repeat the same playbook.