[ang_cire]

That is only true at the start.

The quality will always be lower for a new product/ production line, because 1) it hasn't had the time to iterate that got the established, big-name producers to where they are, and 2) it democratizes the market to allow for lower-quality version that weren't fiscally feasible under a more complex (and thus expensive) manufacturing/ production base.

But after the market normalizes, it will start to naturally weed out the price-divorced low-quality products, as people will figure out which ones are shitty even for their price, and the good-for-their-price ones will remain.

Eventually you'll end up with a wider range of quality products than you started with, at a wider range (especially at the low end, making products more accessible) than when it started.

High barrier of entry marketplaces only benefit big companies who don't want to actually compete to stay on top.

Tying it back to the discussion here...

Sure, AI will produce a million shitty Google clones, but no one is using them but their makers. Eventually the good ones will start to inch up in users as word gets around, and eventually one might actually make an inroad that Google has to take note of.

[reactordev]

Thus creating a concentration on which is the best personal Google clone and thus, creating another Google. Walled paywall and all. It’s a cycle.

Free and open marketplace, crapware. Crapware for long enough, goodware. Goodware so good, it needs hardware, it needs integrations, it solves world hunger, but no one uses anything else anymore.

No, the best are marketplaces that are open but moderated for quality.

[ang_cire]

Moderated by who? A company who owns the 'marketplace'/ app store? A government whose politicians get election money or favor companies that employ their constituents?

There is no such thing 'moderated for quality' when authority is at play, only 'moderated for control'.

Quality-first requires free association, which requires a free market.