3 ms·

Not to take one side or another but these assertions are wrong on their face: > Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network

Not to take one side or another but these assertions are wrong on their face: > Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. I can start smoking, quit smoking, change brands, nothing outside of me really changes. Missing out on the socialization of smoke breaks is a huge cultural pull. And remember all the 90's/00's campaigns highlighting the dangers of peer pressure. Not to mention the plumes of smoke being blown into the air for passerby to inhale - that is not a public nuisance?

simoncion 2mo ago
> Missing out on the socialization of smoke breaks is a huge cultural pull. Sure. But the specific claim was that Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. While I can imagine a smoke break group that prohibits members that smoke cigarettes from brands other than those owned by Phillip Morris, I expect the number of such groups to be very, very close to zero. In contrast, groups that use Facebook to socialize are very likely to exclude folks who refuse to use Facebook. It's very easy for the members of a smoke break group to continue to interact fully with a member who switches from Marlboro to American Spirit cigarettes. It's a right pain in the ass for the members of a Facebook group to continue to interact fully with someone who switches from Facebook to X/Twitter.