Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch found out from Wu that there were a couple of paragraphs deleted from the WSJ piece about the potential durability of these monopolies, which line up with the "monopolies aren't necessarily bad" idea:
"Are today?s internet monopolies really comparable to the info monopolies of other ages, like AT&T, the Hollywood studios, and NBC? Informed by the apostle of creative destruction Joseph Schumpeter, some agree that Internet monopolies are inevitable, but insists also that they are also inherently vulnerable and ephemeral. Just wait and today?s monopolies will be reshaped or destroyed by disruptive market forces. Bing may have had a slow start, but it may still run over Google, and if not, perhaps the rise of mobile Apps will make search engines irrelevant altogether. The theory is based, in part, on an inescapeable truth: all things change.
It is possible that we are living with a free market a very different kind than that envisioned by Adam Smith. He believed that a free market would mean many firms competing to sell their product at the lower price. It is a vision of successive industrial empires who stay in power only as long as they enjoy Heaven?s mandate. And indeed if, say, Facebook?s rule over any social networking were somehow limited to, say, 10 years, or better, ended the moment the firm lost its technical superiority, the very idea of monopoly might seem quite wholesome."
According to TechCrunch, there's a Facebook group called "Stop Craigslist Human Trafficking ? Choose Ebay Classifieds" that might have kicked this thing off.
Some additions from Wu
Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch found out from Wu that there were a couple of paragraphs deleted from the WSJ piece about the potential durability of these monopolies, which line up with the "monopolies aren't necessarily bad" idea:
"Are today?s internet monopolies really comparable to the info monopolies of other ages, like AT&T, the Hollywood studios, and NBC? Informed by the apostle of creative destruction Joseph Schumpeter, some agree that Internet monopolies are inevitable, but insists also that they are also inherently vulnerable and ephemeral. Just wait and today?s monopolies will be reshaped or destroyed by disruptive market forces. Bing may have had a slow start, but it may still run over Google, and if not, perhaps the rise of mobile Apps will make search engines irrelevant altogether. The theory is based, in part, on an inescapeable truth: all things change.
It is possible that we are living with a free market a very different kind than that envisioned by Adam Smith. He believed that a free market would mean many firms competing to sell their product at the lower price. It is a vision of successive industrial empires who stay in power only as long as they enjoy Heaven?s mandate. And indeed if, say, Facebook?s rule over any social networking were somehow limited to, say, 10 years, or better, ended the moment the firm lost its technical superiority, the very idea of monopoly might seem quite wholesome."
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/13/information-monopolies-internet/
Facebook angle?
According to TechCrunch, there's a Facebook group called "Stop Craigslist Human Trafficking ? Choose Ebay Classifieds" that might have kicked this thing off.
source: http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/17/ebay-loquo-sex-trafficking-craigslist/