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

The only moat left is money?

elliotbonneville.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 398 posts

Re: The only moat left is money?

#351

Post by pixl97 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #109
boplicity wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People almost never admit it when they respond to an ad. Even when they very clearly do. Don't underestimate the effectiveness of advertising, or its ability to influence you.

I distinctively remember when ads have worked on me to buy something. Sometimes I blacklist a brand if an ad is deceptive and makes me click on something, but I don't watch TV much if at all, and the streaming services I do use I pay to have ads removed.

You remember when you remember an ad works on you, of course that is a tautology, you don't remember when you don't realize an ad worked on you but did.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#352

Post by chao- »

johnleblanc wrote: post #204

Are you not concerned about getting a copyright strike from the fashion brand? https://kith.com/

Your concern is valid, but you are misguided on a few details. I will inform you as best I can in the context of US intellectual property law.

I am not a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of time adjacent to this stuff, and am not aware of a "copyright strike" as a legal concept. I assume you are borrowing this terminology from various platforms who have their own internal "three strikes" policy for user-created content that violates copyright. However, those policies are entirely for-and-within those ecosystems, and do not directly correlate to any legal notion of "copyright strike". If you violate the rights of someone's work, they send you a C&D and/or sue you, regardless of the platform's use of some "strike" system.

That "someone's work" is key: Copyright covers the output of creative works: writing, art, photography, code, music, video production, et cetera. Copyright law would apply if social media Kith stole an image from fashion Kith's website. It would also apply if one was sent social media Kith the source code from fashion Kith's website, and social media Kith used it (I don't know why they would, but it would violate the copy rights of fashion Kith). The violation would be about the work, not the name.

You referred to the brand name, which would be covered by Trademark law. Trademark law concerns itself with more than just the name, but also the design/logo, sound of the name when spoken, etc. Within that, there is a focus on the likelihood that the public would might confused and the degree to which one brand or another might be damaged by that confusion.

This leads to (somewhat common) situations where there are two marks with the same name, but in different industries, because there is no risk of brand confusion. For example "Delta" is a trademark of an airline company, and "Delta" is also a trademark of a faucet company. They have different logos and products/services in different industries (the USPTO has 40-or-so categories), thus there is little risk of brand confusion.

On the other hand, if two businesses have products/services in the same category, even a different name can be a Trademark violation if it (for example) sounds similar enough. Imagine a hypothetical hard drive manufacturer named "StoreTech". If you started a hard drive manufacturing company and named it "StorTek" it's very likely that StoreTech would pursue trademark action against you, even though the name is technically different!

There is A LOT more to Trademark than just this, but these are some factors to keep in mind.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#353

Post by array_key_first »

tuatoru wrote: post #324
Ntrails wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simply a case of looking back and deciding this technical revolution is identical to the ones preceding it. Thus jobs destroyed will be replaced with new jobs, it always happens that way. Of course past performance is no guarantee of future success...

> jobs destroyed will be replaced with new jobs Not for horses though, or at least not the majority of them. Some were kept as pets or essentially status objects. In this case we are the horses.

And glue, you forgot glue. Maybe we'll get the Matrix plot line where we become human glue. Or, uh, batteries.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#354

Post by geoffmanning »

throwawaytea wrote: post #330
iamgopal wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welding is being heavily targeted for automation, apart from pressure vessels etc, most welding can be automated now a days , very soon ( months? ) every welding can be automated.

You're thinking of factory welding, manufacturing or maybe repetitive pipeline welding and thinks like that. It'll be a while until a robot disassembles a trailer enough to remove the bent axle, cleans off all the paint and rust, bends the trailer back into shape where needed, cuts a custom support to makeup for some lost strength, welds it in, primers it, paints it, and assembles the trailer. Same for construction t…

Will it tho? I wonder. We're on the brink of a robotic revolution.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#355

Post by eli_gottlieb »

tuatoru wrote: post #324
Ntrails wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simply a case of looking back and deciding this technical revolution is identical to the ones preceding it. Thus jobs destroyed will be replaced with new jobs, it always happens that way. Of course past performance is no guarantee of future success...

> jobs destroyed will be replaced with new jobs Not for horses though, or at least not the majority of them. Some were kept as pets or essentially status objects. In this case we are the horses.

Horses couldn't revolt.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#356

Post by jondwillis »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #355
tuatoru wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> jobs destroyed will be replaced with new jobs Not for horses though, or at least not the majority of them. Some were kept as pets or essentially status objects. In this case we are the horses.

Horses couldn't revolt.

And we won’t. Uber Eats Burger Reich and all.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#357

Post by paulryanrogers »

PlatoIsADisease wrote: post #195
showerst wrote: post #3

This AI boom is just a hyper-version of previous tech booms (web 1.0, VC, crypto, etc). You have an enormous number of people who just want to get in and build something, but the products they are pumping out don't serve anyone's need or solve anyone's problem. The moat isn't money for out-marketing your idea that 750 other people are building, it's having a good idea that solves a problem that nobody else is solving…

Buddy, my wife vibe coded an app that solves her PTO tracking problem in 1 shot. Her payroll company was going to charge her an extra $200 a month.

Go on

Re: The only moat left is money?

#358

Post by sowbug »

esseph wrote: post #243
sowbug wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're the exceptions that prove the rule. For every Taylor Swift, there are probably tens of thousands of songwriters who have never earned a dollar from their creations. The vast majority of valuable copyrighted/patented creations are works for hire, which is compensated just like other labor. Or the creator signs or licenses the rights away to a publisher and maybe receives contractual royalties, rarely more than…

Stock photography? Font/Typography sales? What about Pluralsight/Udemy courses? Substack/Patreon membership? Buying printable art from etsy?

Yes, all addressed by earlier discussion in this thread.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#359

Post by bccdee »

mothballed wrote: post #310
bccdee wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the whole idea of a "natural market process" here is absolute and utter hogwash Might I introduce you to the concept of a "natural monopoly"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly Anyway, what regulation is responsible for Walmart and Amazon putting local retailers out of business? > the government effectively quasi-nationalized AT&T After a big merger put AT&T in charge of the majority of telephone lines…

>Anyway, what regulation is responsible for Walmart and Amazon putting local retailers out of business? Walmart + Amazon combined are only ~16% of the retail business. They're not monopolies. The fact they put a small minority of businesses out of business does not mean they're a monopoly. This is likely part efficiencies and also part regulatory capture via the insane zoning/building regulations in this country and…

> Walmart + Amazon combined are only ~16% of the retail business.

of ALL RETAIL? That includes groceries! That's huge! Anyway, Amazon is >40% of e-commerce & Walmart is >10%. Together they control more than half of all online commerce. That's definitely monopolistic.

> It was not already a monopoly. […] shortly before your noted date of "regulation" those competitors held the majority market share

From Wikipedia: "AT&T controlled over 80% of the U.S. telephone system market by 1907 and Theodore Newton Vail rejoined the company as its President. Vail negotiated with competitors, charging them fees for connecting to AT&T's long-distance network. These practices led the Justice Department to attempt to breakup AT&T, but a settlement was reached through the Kingsbury Commitment on December 13, 1913. It brought federal oversight into AT&T and led its Bell System monopoly to become federally regulated."

They had an 80% market share pre-regulation. Yes, it was already a monopoly.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#360

Post by chii »

miyoji wrote: post #181
phil21 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just another way of saying "Ideas are worthless, execution is what matters" which has always been largely true. Yes, you need the idea first of course. But that's truly the easy part. 99% of "ideas" rely on great execution to be worth even looking at - much less paying for - for anyone else.

That isn't what it's saying and I don't think the idea that "execution is what matters" is even true, other than to point out that ideas aren't valuable by themselves. This is about marketing, about getting people to know and care that the thing you built exists. You can execute perfectly (in terms of making a great product) and not get a single eyeball.

> You can execute perfectly (in terms of making a great product) and not get a single eyeball.

that's a tautological statement - if not a single eyeball is on the product, then you obviously didnt make a great product. after all, who determines a product is great? It's those eyeballs, not the creator.

Post reply on HN