Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I find it inexplicable when people respond to a particular problem with a suggestion on which large platform/ecosystem someone should use instead, or avoid.

Switching ecosystems is nowhere near that trivial.

Ecosystem choices are dependent on content and tool investments, other devices owned, product groups, integrated technologies, network effects between people, between companies, customer relationships, existing phone payments, existing ecosystem familiarity and skills, on and on.

As for developers, they often need to be on the top 2-3 platforms to be a serious choice for customers.

Nothing wrong with highlighting different pros and cons of different ecosystems.

But a suggestion to switch ecosystems, without a very deep understanding of someone's particular situation, just isn't helpful advice.




I'd go further and state that "ecosystems" are evil as they erode competition. It should be easy to change products independently of each other, e.g. I should be free to choose between Apple iCloud or Google Photos for storing my photo library. Instead I'm forced to experience what you already mentioned: integration preferences on different platforms, network effects and so on.

Only direct product properties should drive users' choices, everything else just raises the market entry barrier for potential competitors.


"Ecosystems" certainly are a real problem, although I think calling them "evil" is a bit far. What they are is a way for companies to create an artificial moat, and artificial moats are very bad things.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: