Hacker News Reader

Comment by webbore | Hacker News Reader

The same public "government largesse" that Gates credits with the microchip and internet is what Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google et al have constantly worked to erode with closed-source, walled-garden ecosystems. They all would have been unable to build their empires on top of the very ecosystem that today they try to cultivate.

View on HN

Blue sky research should be open. Last mile product development and products themselves can be closed source. Else, how do you create profits and value for shareholders? So far, except Apple, the others have made the outputs of their research labs open: published papers, demos, packages like TensorFlow, etc. Besides, there is a division of labor: govt, with its altruistic mission does open blue-sky research. Companies, OTOH maximize profits and the good ones that can afford to, also do open basic research. I don't see his vision to be counter to this.

The problem is, what qualifies as a “last mile product”? AOL before 1991, and CompuServe before 1989 were complete packages, essentially entire Internets, provided by one company. Neither one of them probably liked the Internet to come into a position to replace a large part of their products. It’s the same everywhere – everybody want to commoditize their complements, but almost every product is a complement to somebody else’s product.

They sacreficed progress for their own pockets and now are asking us to not do the same.

I wish there was a technical name for this cycle! The pattern seems to happen in every industry over time.

1. Someone sets out to change the world and make a lot of money by building a business around a new technology.

2. In order to grow the business, they build barriers around their technology / market. This takes the form of closed platforms, patents, safety regulations, etc. (This is a neutral point, I'm not trying to call anyone evil for doing this).

3. Once the entrepreneurs are prosperous, with good intentions, they lobby for the public to pay for essentially remaking their businesses in a more open way. There's the obvious irony in this stage, as they have to fight the very barriers they erected, and I think some people get mad here, because those barriers end up costing the public more.

I actually think this is a healthy cycle. There are a lot of entrepreneurs who are satisfied with 1 and 2, and never put the effort into 3. I think applauding the people who have the strength and drive to get to 3 is going to help the world become better, faster. I don't think there's a reason to hold malice against entrepreneurs for building those barriers, if we did, we will just have less people lobbying for the good things in the world.

> I wish there was a technical name for this cycle! The pattern seems to happen in every industry over time.

Seizing the means of production? Socialization of industry?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com