Earlier today, I wrote on organically regenerative capabilities of most great web businesses like Google and Facebook. I have made a video to take the perspectives home.
As you look into how these companies operate, you can see clear utilities in action. You can even be bolder: monopolies in their respective technology categories. There is nothing that will change the trajectory in the near future. Even if government breaks them apart, the fact remains that another company will take over their positions. Web businesses have this inherent feature that makes them organically regenerative: if you break Facebook because of its influence, another company will just take over its position. That regenerative capability is that ability to get better with more user data. That is what they call network effect:
[…]
So breaking Google will not fix the issues. One day, another company will grow to replace what Google does today. Web businesses get better with growth, unlike meatspace companies where more customers like in a bank hall will frustrate the users. This is a special feature I have captured in inversibility construct:
That feature is why the more the users the better, and that means the best in technology will re-grow even when broken apart provided it has enough users to seed that moment. Over time, there will be convergence. WeChat is the Internet first operating system which practically does everything: WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, all in one. It is a seed that will keep growing, and breaking it will have minimal impacts, unless you want another name, not WeChat, to do the same thing tomorrow in China.
A Comment from LinkedIn User
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
Interesting insight on the regenerative capabilities of the web based companies. I always enjoy your teachings. This brings to mind the Uber case in London. Yes Uber ignored the cues and left a lot for ‘very late’, but my 2 cents is that as long as the value proposition has been effectively delivered to satisfy that latent need for the sharing economy , if legislation stalls one player, customers will gravitate to similarly positioned alternative offerings, but may not rekindle their old desire for the city people’s black cabs. The desire to satisfy that need with the nascent approach will only regenerate itself as available market share for other sharing economy players. After all, uberisation is now a word.