Major tech companies and their influence is becoming too big.

in #debato2 years ago (edited)

To display the structured discussion or engage in the debate, view the topic on https://debato.org/html/discussion?a=samve&p=major-tech-companies-and-their-influence-is-becoming-too-big-yyij8

Tech giants such as Apple, Alphabet (own Google, YouTube, nest ...), Amazon or Facebook are constantly growing, taking over smaller companies and expanding into markets that were not the original focus of the company. This allows these companies to create an ecosystem of products that are only compatible with one another, excluding smaller companies. This also forces users to `choose` one ecosystem and incentive them to only buying their products. We can see this with google, which acquired the company `nest`. Nest originally was a hub that allowed you to control smart devices such as thermostats, camera`s etc. in your home. Now that google is stepping into the field of smart homes as well, they launch their own products and dismantle all compatibility with other hardware producers link.

With all of these companies making their feet wet into the markets of smart technology and hardware production, the influence of these companies on one`s personal life and household can become too much for one company and is unethical. Maybe measures should be taken to mitigate this trend?

I also cannot deny the amazing advances these large players are able to make compared to small companies. Because they have the means to do it, those tech companies are the most suited to advance fields such as augmented reality, image recognition software, machine learning and all other fields that are growing excitingly fast. But I thought this could form an interesting discussion as well!

So please let me know through Debato what you think of this!

Sort:  

Users are heavily incentivised to choose between one of the major ecosystems. Look at the apple ecosystem or the example of google smart home applications. This has the same effect on the market as a monopoly and should be limited.

If you go all the way back to Adam Smith, you can find an argument against monopolies. He explains that they inevitably abuse power. Their sway is so great that they influence government and actually hamper innovation.
Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries the U.S. went through a period of "Trust Busting". Workers fought against the bullying labor practices of large corporations. Government legislated against their restrictive trade practices.
Monopolies allow not only a choking off of competition, but also the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few. This lack of economic equity in a society does not go hand-in hand with political democracy. It leads rather to oligarchy--which is where, I think, a lot of people believe we are headed today. Or maybe we're there already.
Good topic for discussion.

I think you guys are right. The big guys are stepping into other parts thereby making things circle around them and getting all the credits with their magnetic influences. However, they have the resources to further advance whatever they venture into which affects the main group dealing in that business before their arrival. Well, I see it as one power of monopoly that is affecting the society on both sides. If measures are taken to mitigate this trend, there would be a slight decrease in the rapid advancement of some things(Tech to be precise). However, other sectors will be able to develop themselves gradually and hit the mark rather than being completely taken over by the big guys.

I wish I had a different opinion so I could write some countering arguments but I largely share your opinion. I am amazed by the technological advancements recently but I don't think they are only possible with a concentration of capital and knowledge in such companies. I believe that the open source community could have made major advancements as well, but sadly there isn't as much money to be earned as an open source developer. And while the means of tech companies speed up the development process extremely well, I think it would have worked without them as well.

This concentration of technology and knowledge is leading to major advancements in unexplored fields such as augmented reality, home optimization, artificial intelligence, internet of things and much more. This would be much slower or even impossible to develop without major tech companies.

As is true of most important subjects, there are good arguments on both sides. But I think in this case there is little doubt that great concentration of power leads to abuse.

Congratulations @samve! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You published more than 70 posts. Your next target is to reach 80 posts.

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:

SteemitBoard - Witness Update

You can upvote this notification to help all Steem users. Learn how here!

Hi @samve!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.015 which ranks you at #10255 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 302 places in the last three days (old rank 10557).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 158 contributions, your post is ranked at #152.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • You're on the right track, try to gather more followers.
  • You have already convinced some users to vote for your post, keep trying!
  • Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server