The real conversation should be about understanding the value of infrastructure and the need to be explicit. We see this in the inane idea that public infrastructure like post systems and transportation must be self-funding no matter what the collateral damage. We've got lots of stealth social policy that hides serious flaws, such as a public health system that is tied to the 1950s idea of a job, thus being perverse and difficult to fix. As much as I like to fault Twitter, perhaps the real issue is our dependency on accidental infrastructure which seems free - like television that is free as long as don't mind life seeping out while we're tethered to the ad engine. This is interesting at a number of levels. In the meantime, how we do assure diversity in a world in which specialization gives major advantages in cost reduction that provides added benefit in market control. We also have the trend towards leasing and software-as-a-service so that those who advocate for property deny the opportunity to others. I understand, for example, why Apple would want a return on their iPhone investment, but how do we find a balance? PWAs may force the issue by making decoupling the app from the platform (no wonder Apple opposes it). But we still have platform owners wanting to tax innovation. Despite the desperation of 5G, the Internet has allowed us to innovate without paying vig (even if we still have a legacy of telecom's inherent conflict of interest as long as they are granted control of the path). It's a reminder to the days when my conversations were value-added to a provider's network. ARM's effort to tax the value others create using their products is a direct attack on capitalism and markets.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |