You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
You're looking at competition within the oligopolies, and you're focusing on areas that are fairly inconsequential. I'm talking about new competition in high technology areas. New competition is extremely rare because the initial cost of developing a competitive product in a society as advanced as ours is enormous, and most of the people who have the financial means to start new companies are already heavily involved in the oligopolies and don't want to risk their wealth on something that might not be successful. Microsoft and Apple are not likely to be challenged any time soon, the currently established automotive brands aren't likely to be challenged anytime soon, heavy aircraft manufacturers, oil and energy companies, aircraft engine manufacturers.... I'm really tired, but the list goes on.
The best example of this that I know of is light aircraft engines. Those engines have hardly changed in over 50 years, because the cost of developing and certifying a new piston aircraft engine is insanely high. There was a company just recently who had finished the certification process and mysteriously had their funding cut once they were ready to go into production, and they had an awesome engine design, it was better than existing aircraft engines in nearly every way possible. There is no way for new players to join the game.
and you're focusing on areas that are fairly inconsequential
I'm not sure of a definition of "inconsequential" that fits the way technology has risen.
New competition is extremely rare because the initial cost of developing a competitive product in a society as advanced as ours is enormous, and most of the people who have the financial means to start new companies are already heavily involved in the oligopolies and don't want to risk their wealth on something that might not be successful
Every VC in existence disagrees with this. By definition- if they considered this true they wouldn't be involved in venture capitalism. Or, I suppose, they could just suck at being VCs. Mark Cuban, however, takes absolutely the opposite view and invests heavily in startups and new ideas. "Shark Tank" may be heavily staged, but the companies that are formed are real. Cuban has said that he's invested in 71 companies through the show and that about 60 of them are financially successful.
Microsoft and Apple are not likely to be challenged any time soon
Google disagrees. And the rise of ChromeOS, Google Docs, and Android tablets seems to confirm that people are responding well to that challenge.
the currently established automotive brands aren't likely to be challenged anytime soon,
Elon Musk might take exception to this idea. Tesla isn't important enough yet to be a real threat, but the prices are coming down and the quality is improving. He's building a solid foundation for a real threat to the established automotive companies.
Sure- there are industries where disruptive changes are less likely. Cable TV is another example- I keep going on about that one because the deal Comcast and Time Warner gets seems so obviously wrong to me that I don't understand why it's allowed.
On the other hand, how long is it going to be before an MVNO makes a serious bid on some cellular frequencies of their own? Don't know, but since the idea was rare even 5 years ago and unheard of 10 years ago, I'm not willing to predict that they've somehow capped their growth.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] TheBrokenWorld ago
You're looking at competition within the oligopolies, and you're focusing on areas that are fairly inconsequential. I'm talking about new competition in high technology areas. New competition is extremely rare because the initial cost of developing a competitive product in a society as advanced as ours is enormous, and most of the people who have the financial means to start new companies are already heavily involved in the oligopolies and don't want to risk their wealth on something that might not be successful. Microsoft and Apple are not likely to be challenged any time soon, the currently established automotive brands aren't likely to be challenged anytime soon, heavy aircraft manufacturers, oil and energy companies, aircraft engine manufacturers.... I'm really tired, but the list goes on.
The best example of this that I know of is light aircraft engines. Those engines have hardly changed in over 50 years, because the cost of developing and certifying a new piston aircraft engine is insanely high. There was a company just recently who had finished the certification process and mysteriously had their funding cut once they were ready to go into production, and they had an awesome engine design, it was better than existing aircraft engines in nearly every way possible. There is no way for new players to join the game.
[–] SteelKidney ago
I'm not sure of a definition of "inconsequential" that fits the way technology has risen.
Every VC in existence disagrees with this. By definition- if they considered this true they wouldn't be involved in venture capitalism. Or, I suppose, they could just suck at being VCs. Mark Cuban, however, takes absolutely the opposite view and invests heavily in startups and new ideas. "Shark Tank" may be heavily staged, but the companies that are formed are real. Cuban has said that he's invested in 71 companies through the show and that about 60 of them are financially successful.
Google disagrees. And the rise of ChromeOS, Google Docs, and Android tablets seems to confirm that people are responding well to that challenge.
Elon Musk might take exception to this idea. Tesla isn't important enough yet to be a real threat, but the prices are coming down and the quality is improving. He's building a solid foundation for a real threat to the established automotive companies.
Sure- there are industries where disruptive changes are less likely. Cable TV is another example- I keep going on about that one because the deal Comcast and Time Warner gets seems so obviously wrong to me that I don't understand why it's allowed.
On the other hand, how long is it going to be before an MVNO makes a serious bid on some cellular frequencies of their own? Don't know, but since the idea was rare even 5 years ago and unheard of 10 years ago, I'm not willing to predict that they've somehow capped their growth.
[–] TheBrokenWorld ago
You're talking PDAs, and other useless nonsense. It's just fun stuff that no one depends on.
Good for them, so where are the competitors to all of the oligopolies that I named?
Because he's extremely exceptional. How many companies like his have come along in the past 50 years?
As a PC user, I couldn't care less.