We just keep running into this same issue indefinitely: the internet is a winner-takes-all mechanism.
I wish things were more like in the physical world, where you might have hundreds or thousands of "etsys". Each having a unique vibe, products on offer, and so on. Each of these individual stores would have a reasonable and stable margin and relatively stable group of customers. They can all co-exist.
No such thing on the internet though. Inevitably you always end up with one place to rule them all. Easy for buyers, no need to browse many websites. Easy for sellers, reach the maximum audience with the least effort.
The model always breaks, and the platform facilitating the exchange turns "evil".
The conclusion is primitive. We're all responsible for this. Consumers always pick convenience over any alternative, and they do buy knock-offs. Buyers will always be attracted to singular platforms, want to pay the lowest fee for the largest reach.
We all want "something for nothing", and this is what we end up with. It is the accumulated outcome of billions of tiny selfish decisions.
Is this a natural property of the internet or is it a consequence of how internet businesses are usually funded? It always struck me as weird that "predatory pricing" of a product at below cost can be considered anti-competitive behaviour when done by market leader, but is OK when done by a "start-up" fuelled by millions in VC money. This is especially apparent in the gig economy space, where local knowledge should give you a competitive advantage but instead you're forced to compete with foreign businesses that are happy to sell $2 worth of service for $1 of revenue.
Yes, I'd say centralization of attention/discovery is an inevitable force of the internet.
For digital products, say "content", it has been there since the early beginnings. When people had their "independent" blog, already then they had blog rolls linking to other bloggers and over time a class of top bloggers emerged. A handful getting all traffic, the other 99.99% gets nothing.
Before search engines, we had directories. Lists of links. But there's only so much space, so a few sites get all traffic, the rest none.
We democratized it with things like Digg, but in reality 3 people decided what gets on the homepage.
So yes, it seems to me that centralization of attention is built-in. Or rather, it's a human condition. A centralized service offers more convenience and people tend to do the most convenient thing. Creators do the exact same thing.
...and then we blame the platform. My point is that WE did it. WE created the situation, not the platform.
As for physical goods, I consider that to be somewhat of a separate topic. The internet in itself does not magically produce and ship ultra cheap goods. Such a thing is only possible due to very specific international trade circumstances.
I think it's an issue with discovery. Organic discovery on the internet does not exist -- you do not pass by a cool internet store on your way to whatever else you were doing, the only way for you to know it exists is for it to be advertised to you.
I shop at many physical world boutiques who also have a successful online presence. Etsy is actually the worst place for these kinds of things, as the people there are running under margins where they could never afford physical world rent. A physical world store showing up on Etsy, where people with some free time make things at home, would cheapen their brand as a physical presence in a community
The place where these physical world "etsys" live is usually Shopify
>I wish things were more like in the physical world, where you might have hundreds or thousands of "etsys". Each having a unique vibe, products on offer, and so on. Each of these individual stores would have a reasonable and stable margin and relatively stable group of customers. They can all co-exist.
Can it though? Even in the physical world, larger firms tend to buy up the smaller unique firms and turn them into monotonous big business. Eventually everything becomes McDonalds and Wal-Mart-- also easy for buyers because they only have to go to one familiar place. As much as people hate that, it does appeal to the natural desire for simplicity and repetition. Even though you can find obscure and out of the way stores to shop, most of the time people just go to the big box store they know already
I wish things were more like in the physical world, where you might have hundreds or thousands of "etsys". Each having a unique vibe, products on offer, and so on. Each of these individual stores would have a reasonable and stable margin and relatively stable group of customers. They can all co-exist.
No such thing on the internet though. Inevitably you always end up with one place to rule them all. Easy for buyers, no need to browse many websites. Easy for sellers, reach the maximum audience with the least effort.
The model always breaks, and the platform facilitating the exchange turns "evil".
The conclusion is primitive. We're all responsible for this. Consumers always pick convenience over any alternative, and they do buy knock-offs. Buyers will always be attracted to singular platforms, want to pay the lowest fee for the largest reach.
We all want "something for nothing", and this is what we end up with. It is the accumulated outcome of billions of tiny selfish decisions.