4 ms·
If a company routinely closes its customers' accounts when there's no good reason to won't it open a space for a competitor who is known for not doing that? See
by savanaly 8y ago
If a company routinely closes its customers' accounts when there's no good reason to won't it open a space for a competitor who is known for not doing that? Seems like it's hard to have an equilibrium where one can't keep a bank account open and no bank is trying to grab more market share by reforming its system to prevent unnecessary closures.
- loceng 8y agoMaybe. Google has economies of scale on its side already and automation allows for higher profit, so so long as it isn't regulated it's practically and nearly impossible, an uphill battle.
- ribosometronome 8y agoHow often does a large company really get brought down by screwing over some small subset of their customers?
- savanaly 8y agoGuess I was more responding to the speculation of a Skynet scenario than of a company screwing over a "small subset" of customers which plainly does routinely happen.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoIt's not as if the market can magic gigantic competitive companies into existence. Amazon is a monopoly because of its huge scale. It happens - almost incidentally - to have an effective monopoly on a large sector of the self-publishing market. But that's a small part of a much larger online retail marketplace monopoly. This means it can dictate terms to authors, and generally do whatever the hell it wants to. There is nowhere else that authors can go without losing significant sales. How easy do you think it would be for a competitor to build a monopoly the size of Kindle from a cold start? How much cash and other resources would be required, and how long would it take even if the cash and other resources were available? And after all that - how profitable would that competitor be compared to Amazon, and how likely to provide a reasonable return on IPO?