https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLANTiDd8Ok
This review essay may contain some errors about the objective truth. Also, this review essay is completely written by myself. Therefore might have a biased opinion. Please tell me if this essay includes some errors about the objective truth. Also, I like to hear your idea about my opinion. Please leave them in the comment.
Intro
Currently, many people are using smartphones. Since almost every people of the world are using smartphones, there are tremendous amounts of apps in the world either. There are over 3 million apps on Android and over 2 million in the App Store of Apple.
However, even though there are that many apps that people can use, only a few applications have the dominance of the application market and sales share.
The video also mentioned how the 'super app' birth and how powerful they can be since they have enormous data of their customers.
When I finished watching this video, I thought that few companies that run 'super app' have too much power over people. Therefore, I thought there should be some kind of regulation to protect citizens from the potential side effects of monopolization of the app market.
There are three reasons to stand my opinion. To prevent citizens from mass marketing, to help people to get access to many options of choosing apps, and prevent companies to have too much power and threat social stability.
Body
The first reason why I assert making regulations for big companies running the 'super app' is to prevent citizens from mass marketing.
Just like the meaning of the 'super app', they have enough data and services combined and are able to compute specific methods and ways for their own marketing. Of course, marketing itself isn't a bad thing and is usually good for public goods since people can get what they want and companies joining the market can earn money and pay tax.
However, with the current environment, some people can be pressed to spend money since 'super app' encourages people with making trends or alarms. For example, Kakao's give a present function lead people to give present to peers and many other people. In this case, the person who gets a present usually has to give back since that is cultural politeness.
The second reason is to help people to have a variety of choices when using applications. Since the monopolization proceeds with the so-called 'super app', those companies inevitably get power and are likely to show the tendency of pushing other applications from the ring. For example, people of the Southern Aisa usually use Grap or GoJek to move somewhere or to order food. Of course, they made amazing innovations and made people happy and convenient who use them. But, even though the start is good, the end can be not that pleasant. If Grap or Gojek raise the price of their services, people have to follow it without having the option of choosing other applications. Since as according to the video, Grap has over 187 million users in more than 350 cities. And Gojek earns 2% of Indonesia's 2 trillion dollar GDP.
Finally, those 'super app' can threaten or even ruin the stability of society by having too much power over the citizens. As I mentioned in the second paragraph of the body, if people will no longer have the option to choose other apps and the monopolization completed, companies having the big tech can use it as leverage to increase their net profit. If that happens, people have to pay some kind of another tax to the company, not the government. It will lead to a decrease in the tax income of the government and will weaken the society since the government is the representative of the citizens and the companies are not.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if the variety of the application option isn't guaranteed, people will face adversity since monopolization is always unpleasant for most people.
Thanks.
Comments
Post a Comment