4 ms·
Add in the damage it does to your monopoly defense though and suddenly it's not as obviously +EV.
by cmcaleer 3y ago
Add in the damage it does to your monopoly defense though and suddenly it's not as obviously +EV.
- dredmorbius 3y agoAccepting payment to not compete ... raises the question of collusion and conspiracy to maintain both monopolies.
- ffgjgf1 3y agoBut it’s not that. It’s like supermarkets charging suppliers to place their products in more appealing/visible shelf positions.
- dredmorbius 3y agoWell, yeah, there are supermarkets involved. But that's hardly all of it. There are to vertically- and horizontally-integrated monpolies, both running their own supermarket chains (app stores), with their own real estate monopoly networks (brand A and i smartphones), each of which grows and processes its own food and consumable products (software apps), as well as the logistical back-ends for distributing and managing that (brand A and i smartphone OSes), in a market in which other independent vendors exist, and Brand G pays brand A (which offers OS and smartphones i, not A) an absolutely gobstopping premium to both not promote third-party products and refrain from developing and promoting its own product, not by buying preferential shelf placement but by buying all shelf-space, by default. Which suddenly looks a lot less copacetic.