> It may seem pedantic to you, but network effect creates a benefit, not a cost. That may create an opportunity cost for those not in the network, but it's not

> It may seem pedantic to you, but network effect creates a benefit, not a cost. That may create an opportunity cost for those not in the network, but it's not a direct cost. This distinction is actually very important. So, it's a cost, but not a cost? What's your point? Also, the network effect doesn't create a benefit. The benefit of using a network (and thus the cost of not using the network) is simply what we call the network effect. Other than that I have no clue what point you are actually trying to make, and it all smells like a whole lot of equivocation and missing the point. Do you agree that it is possible to have a situation where one product dominates the market because individuals making rational decisions prefer that dominating product because of its dominance, even though a different product would be beneficial for every consumer of the currently dominating product if they magically agreed on switching over, even when considering the switching costs (other than the costs of reaching agreement, which is assumed to be zero for this hypothetical case)?