There's a world of difference, in context. One is in kind of an equilibrium, where the costs of a product or service are included as part of the good. Consumer

There's a world of difference, in context. One is in kind of an equilibrium, where the costs of a product or service are included as part of the good. Consumers can choose the product that makes legible the costs and labor that went into it. Some suppliers will win, others will lose, but it's based on transparent pricing, which markets function best with. The other only sustains low prices through some exogenous means. It could be a VC dumping money to subsidize a product until all other competitors are gone and network effects take over. It could be a company taking revenues from one profitable product line and investing them to subsidize other product spaces where competitors have to rely on making money from the explicit pricing. On the surface they're similar, in that one company has consumers choosing their product over another's. The difference is what will happen down the line to consumers. In one situation any bad behavior can be quickly corrected by the market. The other is the image of Comcast charging you for a boot stamping on your face forever, even though you never asked for the boot and have requested half a dozen times that they stop the boot stamping on your face service.