4 ms·
I'm not at all following the argument that being cognizant of switching cost should lead one to choose the underdog. Am I missing something?
by mgberlin 10y ago
I'm not at all following the argument that being cognizant of switching cost should lead one to choose the underdog. Am I missing something?
- christophilus 10y agoI think he's saying, if no one chooses the underdogs, the overdog (e.g. Amazon) will have a monopoly and can (and will) take advantage of the high switching costs to gouge their customers.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Walkman 10y agothe company with the smaller market share cannot make moves so easily because can't afford to lose customers and even more market share, so it will be the nicer guy probably
- driusan 10y agoThe argument is that if no one chooses the underdogs, then eventually there'll be a monopoly and no choice, regardless of switching costs..