undefined | Better HN

0 pointsindigochill4y ago0 comments

> Instead, I think that the imbalance of power between consumer and industry, network effects, and the disproportionate capital investment needed to disrupt the current market mean that no alternative can take any significant hold.

I don't believe the lack of capital investment is a problem. There's mind-boggling amounts of capital being wasted on the metaverse and blockchain bubble that could be directed towards building a disruptive competitor to any of these companies' flagship products.

Rather, I see the problem being that any time a viable competitor appears, it just gets acquired so there's no longer any need for the incumbent to compete. Case in point, Instagram actually became the next hot social network after Facebook, but Facebook the company retained relevance and market share by simply buying them rather than competing. Google has also acquired a bunch of more niche search engines over its lifetime (that's a little more subtle in that none of those alone were going to beat Google like Instagram did to Facebook, but by nipping niche search providers in the bud, Google consolidated the market share around its product).

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

AlexandrB4y ago

> I don't believe the lack of capital investment is a problem. There's mind-boggling amounts of capital being wasted on the metaverse and blockchain bubble that could be directed towards building a disruptive competitor to any of these companies' flagship products.

I think the second sentence contradicts the first. There's little capital being spent on building a Facebook or Google competitor. VCs are chasing "the next big thing" instead. The other reality is that VCs are going to want Google-like revenue and continuous growth from a Google replacement they fund - this means that eventually dark patterns will come into play to squeeze more money from existing customers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse