Hi guys, I’m back in the world of YouTube after having a fairly hectic month.
Exams are now over at uni and I have finally finished my Android app PowerWord 2 (go check
it out on Google Play if you enjoy playing minimalist word games).
One thing that I noticed while doing research for PowerWord, was just how saturated the
app market truly is.
For example, if you do a search for “word games”, as with all things Google, you’ll
get back literally hundreds of results, for example, Wordscapes.
If you continue looking through the search results, you might just notice that there
is a bit of a pattern occurring: Word Cookies; Word Connect; Word Cross; Word Nut; Word Find;
Word Bliss; Word Flowers; Word Connect (again); Word Game; Word Charm; Word Vistas; Word Sushi;
Word Fire; and Word Poo (okay, I made that last one up).
But the list goes on and on with similar sounding games.
If you’ve played any of these games, you’ll very quickly realise, they’re pretty much
the same game.
And I’m not just saying that they’re similar.
Some of them are exactly the same (apart from the title, graphics, and the name of the developer).
So what’s going on here?
Well, I think there’s one of two things that is happening.
Either developers are just copying each other, that is, they see a winning formula and try
to mimic other successful games (there’s certainly an element of that), or most of
these games are made by the same developer.
I’m guessing the latter.
You see, most of these games have been published under a different developer account, but to
be fair, it’s not that hard to make a new account.
You just have to pay a one-off fee of $25 and you have yourself a developer account
for life.
Just as you can have an endless number of gmail accounts, you can also have an endless
number of Google Play Developer accounts.
My guess is that a single company created a successfully word game, and then just rehashed
it multiple times to make it look like a new game.
All they have to do then is publish these copies under different developer accounts.
There’s even entire websites and YouTube videos dedicated to this practice, also known
as “reskinning”.
What’s the point of all of this?
Well of course, it comes down to money.
The goal is to flood the market with the same game over and over again.
The average consumer thinks they are getting a great range of options, but instead they’re
getting the royal screwgie.
It’s the same game repeated hundreds of times.
It’s not dissimilar to the poker machine addict who thinks by playing a different machine,
he’s playing a different game with a different chance of winning.
It’s the same essential game just with some minor alterations to graphics and gameplay
to make it seem unique.
It’s almost certainly the same damn company making the machine.
Is this practice of tricking consumers into thinking that they’re getting a wide range
of options common?
It certainly is.
As I mentioned in the title, I like to call them “hidden monopolies” — companies
that trick us into believing that we’re buying from different companies, when in fact,
they own the whole bloody lot.
Just like the boardgame monopoly, the average consumer is a pawn in this global game for
our money.
I’ll give you another example.
Have you booked a hotel online recently?
There’s a lot of options: Wotif; Hotels.com; Orbitz; HomeAway; Travelocity; Hotwire; Trivago.
Do you think they’re all independent companies?
Nah, they’re all owned by Expedia!
— The big American travel conglomerate.
Foolish me used to think that Trivago was actually an independent website that helped
you compare prices from all over the internet.
Well, to be fair, they do, but all the results come from their own websites.
As I said, hidden monopoly.
Legally I guess they can get away with it because they are very careful in their wording:
“Find your ideal hotel and compare prices from different websites”.
That’s 100% true.
They are comparing prices from different websites.
It’s just that they fail to tell you that all the websites are owned by them.
It would be like playing an 8-player game of Monopoly where seven of the eight players
are working in cahoots.
What do you think would happen to the odd-man out?
Screwed!
This is not a new phenomenon.
My friend used to work for the now defunct Dick Smith Electronics, which was owned by
the Australian supermarket chain Woolworths.
My other friend used to work for another electronics chain called Tandy, which was also owned by,
you guessed it, Woolworths.
They use to tell me stories about customers coming into Tandy complaining about Dick Smith,
or Dick Smith customers complaining about Tandy, or even Dick Smith and Tandy customers
complaining about Woolworths.
Most people were completely oblivious to the fact that they were all owned by the same
company.
Together, Tandy and Dick Smith pretty much dominated the electronics market.
I guess Woolworths knew that the public wouldn’t tolerate a blatant monopoly, so they had the
two chains pretend to be rivals.
A giant drinks manufacturer (which according to urban legend invented the modern-day Santa
Claus and who’s name will remain unspoken in this video thanks to me being pinged a
few times in the past), owns a huge share of the drinks market in Australia and across
the globe.
The once Queensland-owned Kirks is now owned by them.
The Monster Beverage Corporation which produces the energy drink Mother is of course owned
by them.
Even the spring water racket is dominated by this Santa Claus-looking company.
When I was living in Japan, I was surprised to find out that many of the traditional green
teas that I often enjoyed were also owned by them.
Did the average Japanese person know this?
Of course not!
To be fair, I don’t blame the companies.
They’re just doing what they can legally get away with.
Their goal, and their only goal, is to make money.
If they have to own and run 10 different websites, or make the same game hundreds of times in
order to dominate the market, then that’s what they’ll do.
Monopolies will always come about if we let them.
If it was allowed, I’m sure a single company would end up owning the entire world.
It’s only because we have regulation in place that it hasn’t happened already.
But there’s no mistaking that monopolies are not good for the consumer.
They ultimately result in higher prices, and restricted choice.
And if you hurt the consumer, you hurt society.
Further down the line this will lead to a less efficient economy, less productivity,
and less employment.
But almost every major company is guilty now.
When I was designing my new app, I was essentially working for Google.
If they say my app needs to be modified, I modify it.
When I make these videos on YouTube, despite YouTube officially labelling me a “partner”,
I’m really just a slave to Google.
Google dominate the internet and exercise dictator-like control over YouTube.
If I was truly a partner, then surely I would have a say in the everyday operations and
management of the company.
Do I have ANY control?
No.
I’m not a partner.
I’m a partner in name only.
If Google tell me that my video (or channel) is demonetised, it’s demonetised, and there’s
absolutely nothing I can do about it.
Google may not have gulags or prison camps, but they certainly are a dictatorship — a
digital dictatorship that will take over the online world if we let them.
Unfortunately, the average consumer doesn’t seem to mind.
They’re blissfully ignorant of these hidden monopolies.
To be fair, I was too, and I would say that I’m fairly savvy.
So what hope does the average consumer have?
Anyway, that’s enough ranting from me.
You’ve been listening to “Hidden Monopolies and the Illusion of Choice: How Companies
Trick You by Creating More…
Companies”.