In every case the supposed 'harms' that consumers have 'suffered' have been hypothetical and theoretical while the benefits they've enjoyed (compatibility, lower prices, greater function) are obvious.
Yes, isn't it just mind-boggling that when you kill off your competitors, the only competitors left are "hypothetical and theoretical."
Let me draw an analogy, so maybe you'll get it. Suppose you cut off a piano player's right hand. It's not a nice thing to do, and it's illegal, but was any "harm" done?
(Just so you don't have to think too hard, your victim is the consumer, the missing right hand is some dead competitor, and the remaining left hand is Microsoft). Now your victim learns to adapt, and plays only with his left hand. In fact, you might argue, he chooses to play with his left hand, rather than using the bloody stump on his right arm. So since he makes this choice on his own, how can he be harmed? You might argue that the harm is "hypothetical and theoretical" because there is no way to know for certain whether he might have preferred playing with only one hand anyway. And plus, his left hand is slowly improving. But your victim (that's the consumer) might really have liked to have the choice of whether or not to play the piano with one hand or two.
You really have to be try very hard not to see that Microsoft has harmed consumers by limiting competition.
Dave |
