That if Amazon acquired it, this would enable it to horizontally integrate and take control of yet another market? This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers...
The context of the conversation is one of a horizontal monopoly, in a market that's near saturation, operated by a megacorporation that could afford to ignore profits or losses indefinitely, in the specific industry of robot vaccuums. So maybe the question is "why on earth would someone think supply and demand does apply here?"
I believe he’s asking why the parent poster was suggesting monopolistic consolidation would be good for the consumer, contrary to what all theory and experience would suggest.
*shrug* I gave him the argument baseline argument commonly known because it claims that costs become lower (and thus the merged entity claims to pass lower costs to the consumer) that normally flies at the FTC.
That Amazon wasn't acquiring it for it's business acumen and was actually acquiring it for some secondary purpose (i.e. market consolidation, data extraction)
The fact that Chinese dominance in the world of atoms made its position untenable.
Evidence that you can only coast for so long on patents. Eventually you have to get back to work and provide value to customers.
And also that the patents matter only if your competitors are actually bound by them. If not (China) then there is zero value in them.
That if Amazon acquired it, this would enable it to horizontally integrate and take control of yet another market? This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers...
> This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers...
What incentive would Amazon have to drop prices after vertical integration is done?
Economies of scope are the common claim.
No, that's what lowers Amazon's costs.
Why would Amazon, having lowered their costs, pass that savings on to the consumer when they could simply profit more?
Are you asking about supply and demand?
The context of the conversation is one of a horizontal monopoly, in a market that's near saturation, operated by a megacorporation that could afford to ignore profits or losses indefinitely, in the specific industry of robot vaccuums. So maybe the question is "why on earth would someone think supply and demand does apply here?"
I believe he’s asking why the parent poster was suggesting monopolistic consolidation would be good for the consumer, contrary to what all theory and experience would suggest.
*shrug* I gave him the argument baseline argument commonly known because it claims that costs become lower (and thus the merged entity claims to pass lower costs to the consumer) that normally flies at the FTC.
With respect to Amazon? Give us all a break.
This is sarcasm, right? The “eventually,” the ellipses, and the underlying ridiculousness lead me to believe it is sarcasm.
Yes
That Amazon wasn't acquiring it for it's business acumen and was actually acquiring it for some secondary purpose (i.e. market consolidation, data extraction)