GitHub has gained near-monopoly status because it has provided a superior user experience at a great price. If either of those value propositions start to crumble,
git remote add ...
Exploitative monopolies almost always have help from the state: The Patent Office, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Reserve, FDA, etc either grant monopoly or cartel privilege to their customers. Monopolies achieved on the market cannot be sustained without continuing to satisfy customer demands.
The point I think is that as GitHub adds more and more integrations (git + issues + fork graph + CI/CI + ...) then it's not so simple to move to another service. The vertical is more convenient until you realize you're an Oracle customer all over again.
With CI, I wonder if someone could build a tool which had some sort of DSL to define your CI pipeline, and then translated that to configuration files for multiple CI providers (Travis CI, CircleCI, GitHub Actions, Jenkins, etc.) If you write all your CI pipelines in that DSL, then moving to another provider would be just telling the tool to generate output for another backend.
(One issue is that such a DSL could only provide lowest common denominator functionality... or else, suppose CI providers 1 and 2 offer feature X but 3 and 4 don't, then if you use feature X, you can switch between 1 and 2, but the tool would give an "unsupported feature" error if you tried to generate output for 3 or 4.)
Having migrated from Travis to CircleCI for most of my active projects, I’d say their models are so vastly different it’s pretty much impossible to have an AST of sort that can be translated to both except for the simplest and most well-encapsulated cases (at least not before Travis supposedly improved Docker support, by which point I was already gone).
Basically everyone I talk to despises Facebook, which gets pretty much no help from the state, but they still use it because there are no real alternatives.
My argument is that technological platforms are pretty special when it comes to monopoly power because their lock in/switching costs are so high that they can last long after they've stagnated in terms of innovation.
There are tons of alternatives just none that your friends are on.
Surprised no one has taken facebook's launch strategy. Only allow it in one school. Then only ivy league colleges. Then all colleges. Then everyone. Also allow you to import in your email contacts on signup.
That strategy created press / word of mouth and kept it youthful until they were ready for the big launch.
GitHub has gained near-monopoly status because it has provided a superior user experience at a great price. If either of those value propositions start to crumble,
Exploitative monopolies almost always have help from the state: The Patent Office, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Reserve, FDA, etc either grant monopoly or cartel privilege to their customers. Monopolies achieved on the market cannot be sustained without continuing to satisfy customer demands.