Context: Uber and Napster were similar in that they both had to subvert anti-competitive industries. By refusing to bow down to legal pressure, Uber and Napster lasted long enough to show consumers what technology they were missing out on beforehttps://twitter.com/backus/status/1030882502112464896 …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
wasn't this simply a way to steal music?
-
The relevant part is comparing Scour (and Napster) to Uber in how they address a market that uses the law to avoid creative destruction. Showing users what they could have before the law can kill it, improving the market for the consumer
-
dunno. They just used their billions to break a lot of established laws. Many taxi drivers I talk to have to pay $6k more each year in insurance and fees.
-
Yes, I’m not saying the taxi drivers lives are better. On net, I think the ride for hire market is obviously better for consumers
-
well of course. Consumers love cheap stuff. Investors are paying for 59% of your ride. https://www.google.com/amp/s/motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/9a3vye/uber-true-cost-uh-oh …pic.twitter.com/XQY2E7TMfQ
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Check out this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrX5jsiico … Travis on
#failcon in 2011 talking about this -
That was interesting, thanks for the share
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nice. Where’d you find this?
-
Been researching p2p history. Writing a post on penetrating anti-competitive markets, comparing Uber and Napster. Someone responded to one of my other tweets reminding me about Scour, so I dug this out of the internet archive
-
Not a lot of tech companies rallying their customers to read about copyright law back then :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.