4 ms·

It seems the author does not see the difference between a monopoly on a service as opposed to a monopoly on a product. These changing stations can be replaced w

It seems the author does not see the difference between a monopoly on a service as opposed to a monopoly on a product. These changing stations can be replaced without any difficulty, by another brand, if the need arises. For services or whole ecosystems, such as Google and Apple (iCloud, Apple Pay, etc) there is a huge vendor lock-in, even for consumers. Monopolies in the latter are unwanted most of the time. But being the major manufacturer and distributor of some non-consumer-bought public bathroom equipment doesn't really do much harm, since a competitor can arise relatively easily if need be.

stronglikedan 2y ago
> It seems the author does not see the difference between a monopoly on a service as opposed to a monopoly on a product. It seems that they don't even know what a monopoly is at all in the context of their own article about antitrust laws, really.
xnyan 2y ago
>these changing stations can be replaced without any difficulty Don't disagree that a plastic changing station can be efficiently made by someone else, but I think you may be misunderstanding their advantage. Koala is providing a service in the world of "places in which the public use the bathroom", which is part of the "places occupied by the public" market. There are an unfathomable amount of needs, requirements, practical concerns, laws/regulations, etc that have to be served when you operate a public space. Koala is part of the established suite of solutions to the problem of operating a public space, and "supply chain diversity" or even "we cost marginally less" is not enough to displace them. Koala would have to really mess up or you'd have to offer a significant advantage to displace a solved problem at an affordable price when it's just one of a thousand things you need to think about. tldr: rent seeking is reliable way to make money if you don't mess up your core value or get too greedy for the market to bear
- userbinator 2y ago
  "get too greedy for the market to bear" Was that intentional?
autoexec 2y ago
It's better for everyone when there is healthy competition in a market and companies are forced to attract buyers on things like innovations, features, service, and price, but honestly I don't mind too much when one company basically dominates the market as long as they aren't going out of their way to shutdown competition. Pressuring companies to sign exclusive deals, bribing government for exclusive contracts, buying up competitors or operating at a loss to squeeze them out, etc. Those are signs that antitrust regulators might need to pay attention. Same when there is competition but it looks like is collusion on prices, innovation stagnates, and customers are unhappy. I don't hear many complaints about Koala Kare and I'm unaware of any evil they're doing to keep their spot at #1 so until that changes I hope they enjoy their success.
- eru 2y ago
  > It's better for everyone when there is healthy competition [...] Well, better for most people. If I own or run a company (or even just work at one), I'm very happy if there's no healthy competition for my products.

stronglikedan 2y ago

> It seems the author does not see the difference between a monopoly on a service as opposed to a monopoly on a product. It seems that they don't even know what a monopoly is at all in the context of their own article about antitrust laws, really.

xnyan 2y ago

>these changing stations can be replaced without any difficulty Don't disagree that a plastic changing station can be efficiently made by someone else, but I think you may be misunderstanding their advantage. Koala is providing a service in the world of "places in which the public use the bathroom", which is part of the "places occupied by the public" market. There are an unfathomable amount of needs, requirements, practical concerns, laws/regulations, etc that have to be served when you operate a public space. Koala is part of the established suite of solutions to the problem of operating a public space, and "supply chain diversity" or even "we cost marginally less" is not enough to displace them. Koala would have to really mess up or you'd have to offer a significant advantage to displace a solved problem at an affordable price when it's just one of a thousand things you need to think about. tldr: rent seeking is reliable way to make money if you don't mess up your core value or get too greedy for the market to bear

userbinator 2y ago
"get too greedy for the market to bear" Was that intentional?

autoexec 2y ago

It's better for everyone when there is healthy competition in a market and companies are forced to attract buyers on things like innovations, features, service, and price, but honestly I don't mind too much when one company basically dominates the market as long as they aren't going out of their way to shutdown competition. Pressuring companies to sign exclusive deals, bribing government for exclusive contracts, buying up competitors or operating at a loss to squeeze them out, etc. Those are signs that antitrust regulators might need to pay attention. Same when there is competition but it looks like is collusion on prices, innovation stagnates, and customers are unhappy. I don't hear many complaints about Koala Kare and I'm unaware of any evil they're doing to keep their spot at #1 so until that changes I hope they enjoy their success.

eru 2y ago
> It's better for everyone when there is healthy competition [...] Well, better for most people. If I own or run a company (or even just work at one), I'm very happy if there's no healthy competition for my products.