[lotsofpulp]

Because buyers choose to spend less money, so if a business comes around that can offer the same product/service at a lower price, the investor will want to own a piece of that business rather than the one that is about to lose buyers.

[saghm]

Right, because we never see investors making decisions that are suboptimal in the long term because they're too focused on short-term gains. Everyone is perfectly rational, and high initial costs have never discouraged anyone from trying to displace an established dominant player; it's purely because the dominant players are perfectly efficient and don't ever try to rent-seek.

[lotsofpulp]

I did not claim any of that, so not sure if your reply is misplaced.

It’s an easily observable fact that throughout the previous decades, investors have invested in businesses that reduce profit margins. Amazon being one of the most famous with the slogan “your margin is my opportunity”, but also Walmart, Costco, and other businesses that end up winning because they delivered acceptable products or services at lower prices.

[saghm]

No, my reply was not replaced. You were replaying to a thread where someone was told that they should start a competing business to Microsoft to displace the Xbox, and when the obvious response of how much money was needed to start such a business, you replied with a hand-waved explanation of how investors would be interested if it would eventually lead to a return on investment. You said something that was not technically incorrect in a vacuum but completely ignored the context behind what the person was actually asking, so I was pointing out why your response wasn't particularly relevant or helpful.

I understand that you weren't the one who initially claimed they should start a business, but if you're going to jump into a thread where someone is told something nonsensical and defend the nonsense by ignoring the context, it's reasonable for others to also jump in and call that out.