Pokémon Go is everything that is wrong with late capitalism | Hacker News Reader

Pokémon Go is everything that is wrong with late capitalism

vox.com

24 pointsjosephby35 comments

The facebook feedback of Pokemon Go has been astonishingly the joy people have of seeing people leave their homes to play games. People meeting new people with similar interests and people having interest in Pokemon that would never have thought to have it.

This article's fear of 'no value' is short sighted for a game that just came out, it could easily be the catalyst that gets people to go out of their home and make economy again. I've already seen pokemon go lemonade stands.

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. Pokemon Go is one of the worst possible examples for this problem. It could even be the app that takes AR mainstream; not just the AR view but the concept of using your local neighborhood as an app-enhanced playground. We've had things like Foursquare already, but it never inspired the same kind of joy of discovery as Pokemon Go.

If businesses are smart, they'll capitalize on the trend and make more apps that encourage people to go play outside. That makes people thirsty and hungry for local refreshments and might even inspire conversations about opportunities around town which they might not otherwise have explored.

The writer acknowledges the value of entertainment that the game provides, but you're not really refuting his larger point about wealth transfer.

Kind of good for late capitalism if a bit of waste on a game is a major fault by now, then. Pokémon Go may not be a lasting contribution to culture, but compared with the past it's not at all bad. One generation ago we had the cold war. Two, we had the nazis and Stalin, their unrealistic utopias, and the resulting war. Three generations ago we had a world where most people were poor (ie. median income was far below average).

Astonishing. From "Pokemon Go sure is popular" to "we need more affordable housing and more redistribution of wealth". Is there a better demonstration of the fact that some people just can't help but see everything in the world through their tiny little single-issue lens?

I'm swinging back and forth between thinking that this article is vapid garbage and makes some valid points. Probably both.

I have a similar canned lecture that I give to non-tech friends regarding tech's promises to the future of employment (which eventually rolls around to the need for guaranteed income). The example I've always cited is Instagram. Photography used to mean Kodak, which once a billion dollar company employing an entire city. It got displaced by Instagram, a billion dollar company that employed 12.

(yes, I know, the cameras came from Apple who bought parts from Sony, this is just a vague rant)

So this article is kind of dumb in that it's not a brand new phenomenon that started in the past week, Pokemon Go is not really a great example, and money flowing out of towns into big city pockets has been old hat since Gone With the Wind was a blockbuster… but the point he's getting at is an important one.

Making it easier for more people to move to San Francisco seems like not the best solution whatever problem he thinks he's identified.

Also, local businesses are making money from Pokemon Go, since a lot of the gyms and pokespots are local businesses.

That aspect of the game makes Pokemon Go better than other mobile game fads and mainstays. Flappy Go doesn't get you out exploring the areas around you, but catching Pokemon can enable spontaneous discovery of local shops/ restaurants.

Edit: er... Flappy Bird. I'm not sure what Flappy Go would look like.

we need flappy go right now!

  But the Pokémon Go economy also has some real downsides. One 
  has to do with regional inequality. Nintendo and its partners 
  are rumored to be earning more than $1 million per day from 
  Pokémon Go. That money is flowing away from small and medium 
  cities and toward big technology companies concentrated in big cities.

The author's argument's VERY short on providing facts.

Are you questioning the part of the article you quoted? Because I don't see it being very controversial. The companies getting money are Niantic and the Pokemon Company (which is part-owned by Nintendo). And I guess Google who takes a cut of in-app purchases.

Google makes its money on the Cloud side --- Niantic's running its infrastructure on Google Cloud.

https://www.nianticlabs.com/jobs/

Aren't they a division of Google?

Not since last year. Google is still invested, but they're independent.

http://fortune.com/2015/08/13/googles-niantic-labs-spins-off...

I guess that's technically true, but aren't they still part of Alphabet, which means it's still very much related to Google, even if they're managed independently.

No.

https://www.engadget.com/2015/08/12/niantic-labs-splitting-f...

It is true, but he has written about housing before, and is mostly a tech journalist. So a reader familiar with him won't need a cite.

Definitely a long term customer vs new customer onboarding problem. That said, Vox used to be super into building issue explainers and linking them to articles.

They are just riding on the Pokemon Go train, this story could have been written about any internet-based technology over the past two decades. It hasn't killed capitalism yet.

No, but if capitalism seems healthier and more popular to you today than it did in 1996, I want some of what you're smoking.

This may be naive as I'm no economist, but unemployment is lower/similar to 1996, the stock market has grown steadily since then, and we overcame a recession. I think we're doing alright.

Capitalism and technology are fundamentally opposed forces. Unless we change our ways, as technology matures, we will see economic disparity grow to previously unimagined proportions. Technology will continue to automate jobs and consolidate wealth, this is why we must embrace democratic socialism.

> Technology will continue to automate jobs and consolidate wealth

Seems like that's perfectly aligned with capitalism tho?

That's precisely my point. I believe that technology should serve the human good but capitalism preempts that possibility because of the way it artificially steers advancement. We're serving the dollar, not utility.

Their main objection is that Pokeman Go contributes to the concentration of wealth. Since all of the income is retained by the owning companies. In this way it does not distribute the wealth like movie theaters and autos do. Hey this is the new world. We need to figure out how to deal with concentrated wealth since that is the future. It's like complaining how we are putting all of the spoked wheel makes out of business.

I think the article's author agrees with you. It's important to keep in mind when one is putting spoked-wheel makers out of business because those people are people too; you want to make sure you at least have an understanding of the situation and what the way forward looks like.

i.e. it's one thing to acknowledge that buggy-whip manufacturers are going under when the car arrives; it's quite another to scoff at them with "Well, they should have known better than to make buggy whips---like their forefathers did, because it was a super-stable industry and it's their core skillset."

From some of these comments it makes me feel like a lot of people didn't actually read the article.

1. Yes the pokemon reference is stupid but its more about how technology companies located in major hubs are making money from everywhere and not giving back. Examples used: Hollywood was always major entertainment but created jobs through local theatres. Detroit was major area for cars but created jobs through dealerships.

2. His solutions are horrible and his clear linkbait to shoehorn pokemon into this article shows that this article was written to elicit these types of reactions.

Vox is rapidly moving into my "do not click" list. Their best content is quite good. But the signal to noise ratio is rapidly deteriorating. Shame.

Vox is everything that is wrong with late journalism.

But in "late capitalism" all that money going to those large corporations has to go somewhere else. And that record low interest on government debt definitely has something to do with this. So when all these corporations are flush with cash they are actually flush with stuff like 10 year treasury notes and US real estate purchased in US dollars. Which means the entire world economy is essentially feeding the US extremely cheap money. How someone can reason that is bad for a US resident is bizarre.

There are a few good points in this article. That said, remember, everybody thinks everything was better back when they were growing up.

I don't necessarily think the author thought the old system was better. The author seems to think the old system was well-understood and government regulation was better equipped to control it; the new system requires new thinking and possibly new policy that would have been anathema in the past (Americans have an unhealthy aversion to "resource redistribution" tax policy as a principle, in spite of how much it is practiced. In an economy where money is flowing with heavy concentration at points because audiences are no longer geographically captive, that kind of tax policy may become necessary to prevent the economy from shutting down due to lack of purchasing power---or to prevent revolt due to general anger at large wealth disparities).

Funny how the article characterizes capitalism as "late" and overly concentrated while describing the soaring popularity of augmented reality ... a technology with massive potential to reinvent and invigorate the peer to peer economy. We're more likely to be in the early days of a form of capitalism that will make its past a mere prelude.

> Obviously, it would be ridiculous to claim that Pokémon Go is singlehandedly responsible for recent macroeconomic trends.

...but he's going to try his hardest!

Vox, the internet's leading source of whiny drivel masquerading as profound introspection.

You could substitute "Pokemon Go" with "Clash of Clans", "WarCraft", "Angry Birds" or any popular game where the money flows back to the company rather than the local economy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com