10-11-2006, 01:20 PM
Apoc Wrote:I'm already over the topic but it can not be profitable for a competitor to enter the markey through regulatory costs and its considered a monopoly, why is this any different?
read: shut up ginger!
I'll be quiet after this, I swear.
The difference is legitimacy, which is why I don't like the term monopoly being used. I agree with you that Google pretty much owns the current market, it just doesn't make them monopolists. Google has, through a good (short term, at least) business plan, reached the top of their heap. They, basically, just did a damn good job. Being regulated to the top, or to remain at the top, creates a [potentially giant] dead weight loss because it artifically keeps products from the market. The competition that isn't had keeps products from improving and prices from dropping (which is especially important since you believe Google must eventually sell something) - or in the best case, reduces the advancement rates.
As long as Google stays at the top under it's own will - great. In a regulatory scheme, though, we [consumers] are cheated because we're denied the best products we would like to purchase/use.
When it comes to Ryan Jenkins, the story ends with me putting him in the wall.
2009 Speed Triple | 2006 DR-Z400SM | 1999 CBR600F4 | 1998 Jeep Cherokee
-Ginger
2009 Speed Triple | 2006 DR-Z400SM | 1999 CBR600F4 | 1998 Jeep Cherokee
-Ginger
