Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Silicon Valley Values Shift To Customersploitation

Posted by Unknown on from the but-being-treated-like-cattle-is-fun dept.

theodp writes "Bill Davidow is the real Silicon Valley deal. Commenting on how Silicon Valley has changed over the decades, Davidow is not impressed, dishing out harsh words for Facebook, Apple, Google, and others. 'When corporate leaders pursue wealth in the winner-take-all Internet environment,' concludes Davidow, 'companies dance on the edge of acceptable behavior. If they don't take it to the limit, a competitor will. That competitor will become the dominant supplier — one monopoly will replace another. And when you engage in these activities you get a different set of Valley values: the values of customer exploitation.'"

5 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The incentive to create a business is to make money. Once your market saturation crosses a tipping point, the only way to further increase profits is to exploit, rather than serve your market. So you engage in monopolization, rent-seeking, and so on.

    This is how business has always worked. This is an entirely predictable outcome of basic human nature. It should not be surprising at all. Nor, for the most part, should it be upsetting. We should simply expect that once the businesses get huge like this, we will have to either break them up or heap some government regulation on them in order to protect ourselves from them. We will *always* have to do this, so, let's get busy.

    1. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Adapt to what? The fact that you basically own the market? That doesn't make sense.

      You want to extract more profit from a market that almost entirely buys from you already. Spending company resources on busting into brand-new markets is high risk with an unclear potential payoff. Adjusting your offerings such that people must pay more for the same service, or adjusting the law such that it is even more expensive (or illegal) to use alternatives, is far less risky with clearer gains.

      The choice is obvious.

  2. Hmm ... sounds familiar. by richg74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My first reaction to this article was a wry smile" "I think I've heard this story before." I spent 30+ years working in IT on Wall Street, and saw that industry change from relationship-oriented to a almost complete focus on short-term transactions. ("What have you done for me today?") IN both industries, there is a good deal below the surface that isn't visible, easily or at all, to the customer; that the customer often ends up getting screwed shouldn't really surprise anyone.

  3. Re:Not likely by StatureOfLiberty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "How are the exploited if they are signing up willingly?"

    I agree. But, I would add this.

    We have been busy educating the perfect consumer. One who always sees a want as being a need. One who can't perceive true value. One who cannot weigh risk vs. benefit. One who asks no questions and just forks over the money. Preferably in some recurring revenue fashion.

    We are educating perfect voters too. No analytical skills. Just cheerleaders willing to forward stupid emails and keep up with today's talking points at most. Then pull the straight ticket lever come election day. It is really sad.

  4. Craigslist by SidIncognito · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The more I think about, the more impressed I am by the Craigslist model. There is no constant addition of features just for the sake of appearing to do something or for the sake of growing revenues. That's a service that is truly focused on its users.