Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

monkeymace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#91

Post by jbigelow76 »

sirclueless wrote: post #74
jbigelow76 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of people have created objectively better sites than Craigslist, but they fail because of network lock-in. There is no lock in. A buyer or seller is free to move place their listing or make their purchase from any number of alternatives regardless and Craigslist can't stop them. > Sites like Craigslist and LinkedIn have become the new natural monopolies. Mark Zuckerburg would probably disagree with that statem…

If the value provided by alternatives to CL were as superior as most HN readers believe them to be then END USERS would see that as well and migrate just like MySpace users migrated to FB. That's not necessarily true. I see network effects as something of a negative externality, one that is hit particularly hard by the tragedy of the commons. The problem is that even if every single person on Facebook decided that Yo…

    That's not necessarily true. I see network effects as something of a negative externality, one that is hit particularly hard by the tragedy of the commons. The problem is that even if every single person on Facebook decided that YourBookSpace was a better website that provided more value, no one would leave because until everyone else followed, your network wouldn't be there.

    This type of dilemma is known as a collective action problem.
The collective action problem either did not exist or was not a sufficient problem to prevent FB from overtaking MySpace. The Tragedy of the Commons actually worked as an exploitable marketing angle for FB in the form of exclusivity (initially at least). The winners will turn their disadvantages into advantages.

What most on HN don't want to admit is that the brilliance of their code or the beauty of their design alone are not enough to guarantee success. We still have to market our wares and if the value derived from our code+designs isn't greater than the value provided by CL's network + usability + cost then that doesn't mean we call our parents or a referee or a senator and tell them we need the playing field leveled because the end users are too lazy to see how deserving we are of their business.

Paper classified still exist, web based CL alternatives still exist (Backpages.com is a big one), CL is not a monopoly and a "superauthority" is not the answer.

And how would we know when a "superauthority" needs to step in, "judiciously applied" is subjective. Successful passing of SOPA would have been "judiciously applied" "superauthority" in the eyes of the entertainment industry.

   The free market doesn't work on its own.
I'm of the belief that the free market isn't perfect, maybe not even close to it, but I don't think you've explained how the free market has failed to address the HN community's "perceived" problem that CL presents.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#92

Post by KC8ZKF »

emmapersky wrote: post #78
vacri wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth would another newspaper print an ad or a classified that they're not being paid for? Also, do you have any examples of this hypothetical happening and newspaper A not having a problem with it? Outside of tabloid culture, ye olde newspapers had much more in the way of principles, and using another's content without permission was reprehensible.

Actually, this is really interesting. If a free newspaper did start repulishing ads and the primary paper cut them off, the ad posters would be up in arms because their audience is now reduced. Its a loose loose scenario, much better to allow the reproductuon for everyone.

What if newspaper B held positions the advertiser didn't want to be identified with? Or had readers the advertiser didn't want to do business with? Or presented their ads in a way that they didn't want? I don't think you can assume the advertiser cares only about the widest audience.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#93

Post by asanwal »

crazygringo wrote: post #76
asanwal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting legislation that "levels the playing field"? I'd much rather have this settled by entrepreneurs fighting on the basis of their ideas than some legislator without a clue. No company dominates forever esp in technology. Craigslist disrupted a huge classified industry without any legislator saying that papers had to "open" up their data. Markets work over time.

But the point is, entrepreneurs are currently fighting on the basis of their ideas, and failing , even though their ideas are better than Craigslist, because Craigslist is winning merely because of network lock-in, not because of innovation. Craigslist disrupted the classifieds industry because it had first-mover advantage in a new medium, the Internet. It now abuses that advantage in order to not innovate or even co…

One - you're grossly oversimplifying why CL won. Friendster had first mover advantage as well.

Two - you have way more faith in our legislators than I do. Remember SOPA, PIPA etc from way back in the day. Oh wait - that was a few months ago.

Inviting legislators in - be careful what you wish for.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#94

Post by sliverstorm »

csallen wrote: post #77
crazygringo wrote: post #26

No. I might be inclined to agree, if it weren't for network effects. Once a company reaches a certain size and market share, like Craigslist, would-be competitors are at a competitive disadvantage. Lots of people have created objectively better sites than Craigslist, but they fail because of network lock-in. Normal capitalistic competition is failing. This is the same thing that happened with railways, utilities, and…

You're taking anti-monopolistic sentiments to an extreme. 1. The goal of almost every rational business is to achieve a monopoly in a certain space. If the public or the government had the power to systematically break up every company who comes close to success, there would be little incentive to start a business. Perfectly-competitive industries are awful for business owners. You have to draw a line in the sand, be…

And why does something being "natural" make it good?

So, so many people have forgotten this. Thanks for pointing it out.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#96

Post by huhtenberg »

jacoblyles wrote: post #81
citricsquid wrote: post #2

I think the reason people here feel this way is because the general consensus among HN users is that the best product wins and that's all that matters. If a company has a monopoly on data and refuses to provide an API they're saying that they don't want to compete on the quality of their product (craigslist for example) they want to keep their position without the benefits to the users. Padmapper made craigslist apar…

Craigslist is the IE6 of classified ads. They are a monopoly that keeps the product shitty and prevents innovation. Padmapper is the Mozilla.

It's more of Avant then... as in, you know, the wrapper around the IWebBrowser2 interface.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#97

Post by sliverstorm »

crazygringo wrote: post #76
asanwal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting legislation that "levels the playing field"? I'd much rather have this settled by entrepreneurs fighting on the basis of their ideas than some legislator without a clue. No company dominates forever esp in technology. Craigslist disrupted a huge classified industry without any legislator saying that papers had to "open" up their data. Markets work over time.

But the point is, entrepreneurs are currently fighting on the basis of their ideas, and failing , even though their ideas are better than Craigslist, because Craigslist is winning merely because of network lock-in, not because of innovation. Craigslist disrupted the classifieds industry because it had first-mover advantage in a new medium, the Internet. It now abuses that advantage in order to not innovate or even co…

entrepreneurs are currently fighting on the basis of their ideas, and failing, even though their ideas are better than Craigslist

Then their ideas are simply not better enough.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#98

Post by Jauny »

I might be wrong, I don't know much about all that, but here is my 2cents (as a user of Padmapper);

I personally almost never use craigslist because : 1) I'm not in the US, so I guess I have better choices for local classified 2) I'm not fan of their UI and don't adore to have ads per date (vs price, location, etc.)

But I am starting to look for a place (to rent and to buy) in SF, and didn't think about CL; I was going to Trulia, realtor, etc. I discovered the interest of CL's ads through Padmapper and 8 out of 10 place I found was on CL and I ended up on their site and contacted people through CL.

Today, I am still interested in CL's classified, but again, looking for a place is really hard with their UI because 1) I don't go every single day 2) I don't know every single neighborhood's name, streets, etc. 3) I can't (or hardly can) filter more precisely than the bay

As a matter of a fact, while using Padmapper, their were 80% chance that I would have ended up finding a place coming from CL, but now, there is 80% chance that I will find a place through another service, because the main thing I like looking for a place is drawing a circle on a map and look for places in it; Which CL doesn't allow me to do.

So I just don't understand why CL would block Padmapper or any other service using their API since it just brings more people to their service, and not the opposite.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#99

Post by sliverstorm »

davidw wrote: post #22
xelipe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Craiglist has a "monopoly on data", they have a monopoly on their data and they have not incentive to make their data freely available.

What Craigslist has is what economists call "positive network externalities" or network effects. Which just means that it's a really valuable service because tons of other people use it . Buyers go there because lots of people are selling, and lots of people selling go there because they know lots of buyers visit the site.

So, what are we supposed to do? Seems like the only options are:

A) destroy the network effect with legislation. (How is this good?)

B) select another company The Board feels has a better platform, crush CL with legislation, and establish the new company with legislation. (How is this good!?!)

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#100

Post by ericingram »

jarcoal wrote: post #46
heliodor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Craigslist values us, the users, more than most companies. You know how? By leaving so much money on the table that you can't help but love them! Craigslist is a breath of fresh air in a world where everything is optimized as much as possible to part us from our money!

If CL decided to take that money on the table, they might have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and went out of business years ago. Maybe they realized the path to greatest profitability was to act like they don't care about profits. Just a thought.

Ah yes, that is how free markets actually work!
Post reply on HN