"Competing companies do the same things, duplicating effort, mostly to make a profit. (e.g. Do we really need so many social gaming companies?)"
In theory, we don't "need" more than one of anything: one telecom provider, one computer maker, etc. And they could be more efficient if they didn't have to spend money on advertising, etc.
But the history of monopoly companies seems to show that without the need to compete, companies do not improve their product or its cost-efficiency. So it appears that the loss of efficiency created by having many companies reinvent the process to make a widget is outweighed by the efficiency gains each company makes in an effort to out-compete others. Hence, better, cheaper widgets for less money.
As to the value of social gaming companies, I think it's nearly nil, but apparently millions of other people disagree.
In theory, we don't "need" more than one of anything: one telecom provider, one computer maker, etc. And they could be more efficient if they didn't have to spend money on advertising, etc.
But the history of monopoly companies seems to show that without the need to compete, companies do not improve their product or its cost-efficiency. So it appears that the loss of efficiency created by having many companies reinvent the process to make a widget is outweighed by the efficiency gains each company makes in an effort to out-compete others. Hence, better, cheaper widgets for less money.
As to the value of social gaming companies, I think it's nearly nil, but apparently millions of other people disagree.