Follow

Everyone on market seems to be trying so hard to achieve 100% of marketshare. Why don't they try to achieve a bit less, but make a better product for those people, who are they targeting at?

@alexcleac
Because if they have 100% market share, they can charge you monopolist prices

@wolf480pl @alexcleac tbh, not so many companies really try to get 100% or nearly 100% of the market anymore, because it's hard, because it's dangerous that some anti-trust agency would step in, because with lower entry threshold it's hard to maintain etc. What they actually trying to do is to differentiate to encourage people to use their ecosystem, their computers and to discourage the change of ecosystems. Apple perfected it – you can do everything on PC what you can do on a Mac, same thing with Android phones and iPhones, but people still stick to their hardware and software, even though it's pricey. Same thing with Nintendo, although in much smaller scale.

But tbh, it's not bad to the consumer after all.

@naruciakk
Due to vendor lock-in you end up paying more for something that you could've gotten cheaper from a competitor, and you think this is good for you? Wtf?
@alexcleac

@wolf480pl @alexcleac Well, yes, because they have alternatives but still they just prefer these options, these closed environments over another. It's not like a monopoly in a sense that you have to use this, you use this environment because it provides you the most desired value over the competitors. In other words – you stay inside Apple ecosystem not because it's the only option, but because it's the best option for you.
@wolf480pl @alexcleac >you end up paying more for something that you could've gotten cheaper from a competitor

You still can, but you wouldn't get the same experience as with the closed environment. I would argue that interoperable Apple hardware would lose some of their advantages and I would definitely argue that Nintendo without their consoles would be much less worth the time.

@naruciakk @alexcleac
They'd lose the advantage they have over their competitors, not by having less value, but by the competitor having more value.

Also, "you wouldn't get the same experience" kinda contradicts "you can do everything on PC what you can do on a Mac" which you said earlier.

@naruciakk @alexcleac
Either way, I think the cost of switching is a large part of why people stick in those ecosystems.

If you had two, mutually incompatible copies of the Apple ecosystem, with equal value, but one of them is more expensive and that's the one you're using, you'd still be unlikely to change because the cost of switching is so high.

@wolf480pl @alexcleac >you'd still be unlikely to change because the cost of switching is so high

Would it be though, because now switching between different ecosystem (or moving out of ecosystems at all) isn't that pricey.
@wolf480pl @alexcleac You can do your work or have leisure time using both PC and Mac, but on Mac you can do it in a way that is more convenient etc. It is not contradictory. When I was working at a certain software house, I was provided a Macbook Pro. I could have the work done, but it wasn't as convenient as with e.g. Arch Linux with herbstluftwm, which I used more often.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!