You pretty much confirmed his point. His entire idea is that it doesn’t have to be Kbin that makes better features, Kbin was simply an example. It could be Meta that makes better features. Open source developers will never be able to compete feature-wise with a corporation that will deliberately pour money into making more features than the open source developers, and Meta definitely won’t make them open source. Hence, as per your wording “Meta deserved to win in that case”, which is exactly what we’d want to avoid.
Your point is the worse product should win? Open source can totally compete on features: we have way more developers than them. With Linux I can have basically any feature I want if I tinker enough. It’s about: what’s the best software for people?
My point is that this “fight” between products shouldn’t happen in the first place because Meta is pretty much guaranteed to win that fight. Assuming open source can compete on features (which I seriously doubt) and has more developers, those are people working for free mostly doing their own passion project. In terms of actual working hours corporations like Meta have that army of developers beaten by a mile. In terms of velocity, how fast a corporation can push out features vs how fast an open source community could do it, the corporation wins. Maybe eventually the open source solution reaches feature parity, but by that time it doesn’t matter because everyone is using the product that pushed out the features faster.
And that would be the better product until the enshittification begins and monetization kills all that was good. It’s literally why people are moving from Reddit to Lemmy, because if we leave the enshittification aside then Reddit is objectively the better product. If you think the better product should win then Lemmy shouldn’t even exist because Reddit is just better. But it does exist and it’s growing because the better product is being cashed out. If you just think about the “what’s the best software” you end up with Reddit 2.0.
You pretty much confirmed his point. His entire idea is that it doesn’t have to be Kbin that makes better features, Kbin was simply an example. It could be Meta that makes better features. Open source developers will never be able to compete feature-wise with a corporation that will deliberately pour money into making more features than the open source developers, and Meta definitely won’t make them open source. Hence, as per your wording “Meta deserved to win in that case”, which is exactly what we’d want to avoid.
Your point is the worse product should win? Open source can totally compete on features: we have way more developers than them. With Linux I can have basically any feature I want if I tinker enough. It’s about: what’s the best software for people?
My point is that this “fight” between products shouldn’t happen in the first place because Meta is pretty much guaranteed to win that fight. Assuming open source can compete on features (which I seriously doubt) and has more developers, those are people working for free mostly doing their own passion project. In terms of actual working hours corporations like Meta have that army of developers beaten by a mile. In terms of velocity, how fast a corporation can push out features vs how fast an open source community could do it, the corporation wins. Maybe eventually the open source solution reaches feature parity, but by that time it doesn’t matter because everyone is using the product that pushed out the features faster.
And that would be the better product until the enshittification begins and monetization kills all that was good. It’s literally why people are moving from Reddit to Lemmy, because if we leave the enshittification aside then Reddit is objectively the better product. If you think the better product should win then Lemmy shouldn’t even exist because Reddit is just better. But it does exist and it’s growing because the better product is being cashed out. If you just think about the “what’s the best software” you end up with Reddit 2.0.