This really is the eternal struggle of all decentralized technology:
They all eventually gravitate towards centralization as they gain mainstream appeal, as the very tangible competitive advantages from networks effects and economies of scale win over the mostly philosophical benefits of decentralization that have always failed to sway the masses.
We see this play out time and again, with email, git, and are already starting to see the same pattern emerge with cryptocurrencies.
Though that is not to say there is no benefit to having decentralized technologies. The fact remains that centralized platforms built on top of decentralized technology have a much harder time locking users in due to the low switching costs enabled by the underlying tech. This is why products like BitBucket and GitLab are still viable today despite the undeniable dominance of GitHub, and similarly alternative email providers like Fastmail and Outlook in the age of Gmail.
We rarely see this in markets built on top of centralized tech. In social networks, for instance, there really isn't any viable competitor to platforms like Facebook and Twitter because switching isn't possible without losing all of your investments in the product.
This low switching cost makes upstarts more viable alternatives compared to in markets built on top of centralized tech, and keeps incumbents on their toes and forces them to keep innovating in order to stay dominant instead of just simply riding high on the strength of their moats. As such I do still think the pursuit of decentralized technology is worthwhile, even if a large degree of centralization in itself might be all but inevitable in the long term.
They all eventually gravitate towards centralization as they gain mainstream appeal, as the very tangible competitive advantages from networks effects and economies of scale win over the mostly philosophical benefits of decentralization that have always failed to sway the masses.
We see this play out time and again, with email, git, and are already starting to see the same pattern emerge with cryptocurrencies.
Though that is not to say there is no benefit to having decentralized technologies. The fact remains that centralized platforms built on top of decentralized technology have a much harder time locking users in due to the low switching costs enabled by the underlying tech. This is why products like BitBucket and GitLab are still viable today despite the undeniable dominance of GitHub, and similarly alternative email providers like Fastmail and Outlook in the age of Gmail.
We rarely see this in markets built on top of centralized tech. In social networks, for instance, there really isn't any viable competitor to platforms like Facebook and Twitter because switching isn't possible without losing all of your investments in the product.
This low switching cost makes upstarts more viable alternatives compared to in markets built on top of centralized tech, and keeps incumbents on their toes and forces them to keep innovating in order to stay dominant instead of just simply riding high on the strength of their moats. As such I do still think the pursuit of decentralized technology is worthwhile, even if a large degree of centralization in itself might be all but inevitable in the long term.