• driftuntiloblivion@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It still boggles my mind that you can get in trouble because your competitors can’t keep up with you or have a worse product than you. I get that this doesn’t really happen often, but it’s both funny and sad.

    • No-Cockroach5860@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a little more complicated than that. It’s not just a question of market share, but whether you use your market share to make it impossible for others to compete against you.

      For example, Microsoft was getting itself into trouble in the late 90s because they essentially used their dominant position in the OS market to push Internet Explorer— making it next to impossible for other browsers at the time, like Netscape, to compete. For example, they made it difficult for other companies to install their software when their own competitive alternatives were included for free, and in some cases, impossible to remove (explorer was fully integrated into Windows at this time and you couldn’t remove it).

      There are plenty of companies that essentially own entire markets. Google for example something like 85%. There’s nothing wrong with that.

      • better_off_red@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Almost no one remembers you used to have to pay for Navigator, but they couldn’t compete with free and built in IE.

        • Speedstick2@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Heck with windows 95 you used to have to pay for IE, you had to get the Windows 95 plus package or you had to buy IE separately.

    • TheReaver@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      it still boggles my mind how people don’t understand how a company having a monopoly isn’t a good thing. prices go up, innovation goes down because you have no options.

    • JQuilty@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      iMessage is vendor lock in, not being better. Apple is just as bad as 90s Microsoft on vendor lock in and EEE.

        • JQuilty@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know full well what it means. Did you also sleep through the docs where Apple said they use iMessage as a way to prevent people from switching? What Apple does here is no different than Microsoft making using anything but IE on Windows in the 90s miserable. Or how to this day they keep obfuscating Office formats while pinky promising for real this time they’ll support open document standards.

      • driftuntiloblivion@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And one simple messaging app can kill Android? Then my point stands even more, Google is even worse at making products then.

    • AggressiveBench9977@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You cant. Thats just cause people dont understand anti trust law. You can absolutely have monopoly by competition. If you win the market the government isnt gonna stop you.

      Antitrust measures are when you actively take away ways of competing. Like if apple paid carriers to not sell androids.