Hence the '/have to', I'm not saying they philosophically or morally 'should' - I'm not commenting on that at all - I'm saying they have a duty to 'maximise sha

Hence the '/have to', I'm not saying they philosophically or morally 'should' - I'm not commenting on that at all - I'm saying they have a duty to 'maximise shareholder value', a legal obligation to owners to (aim to) make as much money for them as possible, basically. A privately owned company can do as it (that is: its owner(s) without state oversight) wishes. -- If you want me to comment on the philosophy or morals of it though, I suppose I think 'meh, whatever' - a private company is free to spring up and compete, free of public shareholders and free to maximise customer satisfaction instead. Of course it's easy to say 'free to spring up', and really there are all sorts of barriers to entry in many almost monopolistic markets, but that's rather a separate issue I think - it's just as much an issue for any less customer-oriented, perhaps public or wannabe public, company trying to compete.