I think it is due to the wide disparity between potential members.

For example, consider an agricultural co-op, e.g. wheat growers. The members of the co-op have farms of differing sizes, use similar techniques, have more or less comparable conditions. They produce grain which has a commodity level set price. The main differentiator between members of the co-op is the volume of grain they produce. But on the basis of the commodity pricing it is a relatively level playing field.

Now consider any tech company. Products have vastly different pricing - ranging from free to millions of $ (or whatever your currency) for enterprise levels. The "producers" vary in capability from newbies to rock-star programmers. Plus you need management to facilitate communications, etc. Everywhere you look, you find disparity.

The closest you get to a tech co-op is a startup with a small group of people who respect one another's contribution and follow a shared vision. Unfortunately as soon as you introduce outside investors inequality seeps in.

Co-ops primarily are a way of funding local infrastructure that serves small businesses and communities when there is not a viable ROI for commercial banks or existing businesses: for example grain elevators, rural electrical service, grocery stores etc.

“Tech” (whatever that is) probably tends not to have cooperatives because it does not have a similar combination of conditions.

Because unfortunately that (winner takes all) is the world we live in.

• conqrr

  yesterday at 9:42 PM

  Can't disagree with that. Agriculture, Energy, Grocery, Credit all have co-ops, Yet tech is non-existent.

  • benoau

    yesterday at 10:49 PM

    As they say, money brings out the worst in people - they might rethink if they could scale to 3 billion consumers at relatively little cost and keep the proceeds for themselves.

[dead]