kunstreich … which means the tendency for market failure is inherently stronger in online markets (read: all markets of enormous economies of scale). which means the need for proper regulation of digital infrastructures is inherently bigger to avoid monopolies too large. which would mean: winner takes it all, which would mean: higher prices and less innovation. which … ah, the fuck. marx was right from the beginning.

kunstreich On the internet: Who, who had a real monopoly?

Martin Spindler asked this way: who ever really had a monopoly (not taking into account legally mandated monopolies…)?
But I guess that’s besides the point, isn’t it? Incidentally, there’s an interesting Op-Ed on Peter Thiel (think of him what you will. He’s certainly not an authority in my book) in the NYT, talking about how the focus on competition was misguided: www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/opinion/brooks-the-creative-monopoly.html?_r=4&partner=rss&emc=rss

Jens Nikolaus Fantastic Read.

Sven Dietrich Number one was Id’s Doom.

The idea that a 10-person company of 20-somethings in Mesquite, Texas, could get its software on more computers than the largest software company in the world told him that something fundamental had changed about the nature of productivity.

Moritz The article's first sentence: "It all started with Snow Crash." Honestly, that was all I needed for wanting to read it. It's about what working at Valve is like.

Malte Müller On how Valve works. Fascinating personal insights.

Erik Michael Abrash on how he ended up working at Valve and what's so different about this company.