|
|
|
|
|
|
by electric_sheep
3243 days ago
|
|
|
I see a few problems with this argument. 1. Market share matters, for what should be obvious reasons. Amazon is, in that regard, a far cry from your sole proprietorship fruit stand. 2. Amazon is much closer to Walmart than it is to Apple or Ford; Amazon didn't do retail to support their product line, they rolled out a product line once they dominated in retail. 3. Sure, consumers can go order a Chromecast from somewhere else; just like how users could always download Netscape on Windows. That didn't stop antitrust claims from being brought against Microsoft for their practice of tying, because they were fundamentally abusing a dominant position in one market to assure their dominance in others despite weaker product offerings. And here we are, with everyone subscribed to Prime for the free shipping, and getting an unasked-for set of streaming services bundled with. Which aren't compatible with Chromecast. Which Amazon uses to justify banning Chromecast from its store. It makes the tying of MS years past look amateurish by comparison. |
|
|