They aren't mutually exclusive

Render.com

Why not?

Maybe a CEO "should" because it's good for them and their company, but a healthy market regulator "should not" allow those type of transactions, in general, for the good of market participants.

I agree about your being specific about these types of transactions. At this scale, these things should be blocked.

In healthier marketplaces, acquisitions can also improve the overall health of the marketplace by improving efficiency, output, etc., while maintaining competition.

The interesting question to me in these discussions is, are there systemic changes we can make that would prevent these marketplace distortions from being possible in the first place, and what would be the negative tradeoffs? And are they politically feasible?

Because it’s anticompetitive, bad for users, and sometimes against US law. Like when you’re as big as Visa.

Because it's the definition of anti-competitive actions.

Technically, 1.01001000100001... can be normal depending on what ... stands for. :)

Well, obviously. But presumably the ... is meant to imply that this is the summation of 1/(10^(x(x+3)/2)).

Or what 1 or 0 or . stands for.

Is there any other way to save comments in your history besides commenting on them?

I don't think it's just the extension I'm using, but every comment should have a 'favorite' link?

For me, the most notable absence is Gandhi for Nobel for peace.

He effectively won in 1948. They don't do posthumous awards, so they abstained from giving out the prize that year, stating directly that: "there was no suitable living candidate".

And he didn't get one a decade prior because he was reportedly a tad racist, giving other candidates the edge.

Technically this is a list of top greatest scientists who never won a Nobel Prize.

and Kissinger won.. go figure..

But I digress..

That logic doesn’t scale of for other countries that have friendly micro transactions platforms..

What about other countries where micro transactions are not that expensive... eg. UPI of India.

Because Walmart owns the physical space but apple doesn’t own the physical device.... Apple has set up shop on the real-estate (the device) that it sold over to the user. I’ve seen this argument plenty of times and it rings hollow to me every time.

So, if they started renting the phone to you and everybody else, having a single Apple-controlled App Store would be acceptable?

(That may not even be 100% hypothetical. They have lots of money, so can afford getting delayed payment for phones. They might even be able to become a global phone company, too, and rent you a phone and a network subscription)

This is how apps on phones worked for a really long time, each carrier ran its own App Store and in many cases you were renting the phone from them or getting it for free with your plan. Mobile carriers have begun merging into megacarriers over the last decade, but for a while you had a choice of at least 4 real carriers in the US.

Plus, you could unlock your phone (in some cases) and move to another carrier, which theoretically meant a different store! True freedom.

Of course actually using these phones and putting apps on them was MISERABLE, mostly because they were symbian and/or j2me apps

It's the same strategy that Google follows for Android. The secret juice of the Android app ecosystem is in the Google Play services... And that's entirely proprietary. So even though the OS is open source, it's impossible to truly build an alternative ecosystem. I agree with the author that the marketing rings falsey.