5 ms·
Accepting payment to not compete ... raises the question of collusion and conspiracy to maintain both monopolies.
by dredmorbius 3y ago
Accepting 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.