5 ms·
> It's not ruthless -- it's business. Targeting all employees of a smaller company to destroy them is considered unfair business practice in some countries (le
by Rexxar 5y ago
> It's not ruthless -- it's business.
Targeting all employees of a smaller company to destroy them is considered unfair business practice in some countries (legitimately IMHO). It's similar than selling at loss until your smaller competitor is out of business.
- gavinray 5y ago> It's similar than selling at loss until your smaller competitor is out of business. Why is this considered illegal or unethical? This seems like a fairly legitimate tactical move to me. It's like a war of attrition -- you allow yourself to suffer losses for the sake of ultimately winning. At least in this scenario, the main player is also slightly fucking themselves over, instead of just you.
- tomnipotent 5y ago> Why is this considered illegal or unethical? After competitors are knocked out of the market, the survivor can raise prices to above-market levels. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
- gavinray 5y agoAh this is true, hadn't considered this. It seems like there's a lot of this all the time though? Everywhere I've lived, my only choice of ISP was Comcast. Whatever Comcast told me I needed to pay for internet, that's what I was going to pay lol. For mobile phone providers, in the US your options are generally AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, which I'm sure collude on prices and fix them. Same with Cloud services providers, etc