Show us one example where shutting down a company increased competition among the remaining companies. That’s just not something that happens.
Smaller companies compete by building products that are better than the current market leaders. If the market leader disappears, they no longer have that incentive, as people are going to buy their products even if they don’t improve them in any way, since the customers don’t have a choice.
I’m not saying there won’t be drones any more. I’m saying that they won’t be competitive with DJI in terms of quality or value of money because they don’t need to be.
Show me one example of shutting down a company who held a monopoly? Generally they just get broken up into smaller companies which directly increases competition but that is in no way analogous to our current situation.
We know that in every single example so far that Monopoly and Competition inversely correlate by definitions.
We know that in every single example so far that Monopoly and Competition inversely correlate by definitions
A direct (not inverse) correlation between them happens all the time in tech. Smaller companies get sick of the market leader or monopoly for some reason, produce a better product, and people switch over.
For example, Internet Explorer had a web browser monopoly. Around 98% of web users used it. It lost that monopoly not because it was shut down, but because other, better browsers were released and people organically switched over. Increasing the competition reduced its monopoly.
The same could be said about Teamspeak users moving to Discord. Teamspeak had a monopoly on real-time gamer chat, but people moved to Discord because it was better.
it stopped being a monopoly when competition was created,
Yes
construe that as “monopoly equals competition”
No
My original comment was saying that getting rid of a monopoly doesn’t necessarily increase competition. That’s still what I’m saying. Decreasing the number of competitors never increases competition.
Show us one example where shutting down a company increased competition among the remaining companies. That’s just not something that happens.
Smaller companies compete by building products that are better than the current market leaders. If the market leader disappears, they no longer have that incentive, as people are going to buy their products even if they don’t improve them in any way, since the customers don’t have a choice.
I’m not saying there won’t be drones any more. I’m saying that they won’t be competitive with DJI in terms of quality or value of money because they don’t need to be.
Show me one example of shutting down a company who held a monopoly? Generally they just get broken up into smaller companies which directly increases competition but that is in no way analogous to our current situation.
We know that in every single example so far that Monopoly and Competition inversely correlate by definitions.
A direct (not inverse) correlation between them happens all the time in tech. Smaller companies get sick of the market leader or monopoly for some reason, produce a better product, and people switch over.
For example, Internet Explorer had a web browser monopoly. Around 98% of web users used it. It lost that monopoly not because it was shut down, but because other, better browsers were released and people organically switched over. Increasing the competition reduced its monopoly.
The same could be said about Teamspeak users moving to Discord. Teamspeak had a monopoly on real-time gamer chat, but people moved to Discord because it was better.
So you’re saying it stopped being a monopoly when competition was created, and you somehow construe that as “monopoly equals competition” ??
Yes
No
My original comment was saying that getting rid of a monopoly doesn’t necessarily increase competition. That’s still what I’m saying. Decreasing the number of competitors never increases competition.