4 ms·
"Better for the consumer" doesn't automatically mean cheaper. Competition is better than no competition. It should (doesn't always) lead to lower prices in a sp
by pc86 3y ago
"Better for the consumer" doesn't automatically mean cheaper. Competition is better than no competition. It should (doesn't always) lead to lower prices in a specific sector but may lead to higher spending overall, like in your example lower cost for better video/chat client but perhaps larger IT spend overall at the corporate level. Still better for the consumer because they have better products.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoZero is probably not optimal but more competition isn’t always better than less. For example there’s many more bike manufacturers than car manufacturers. But if anything cars have improved substantially more in price:features over the years.
- megaman821 3y agoI feel that in the realm of e-bikes. I have to hope that the manufacturer that I bought my with stays in business for the life of my bike and that I didn't just buy a couple thousand dollar paperweight.
- jensensbutton 3y ago> Competition is better than no competition. But Slack competed. It forced Microsoft to improve, then it lost. "Competition" doesn't mean artificially keep competitors alive when they can't survive on their own. If Slack was that much better then we wouldn't be having this convo because companies would see the value and pay for it. The actual problem is that companies just aren't seeing that much value in Slack.