They have stable negligible costs. R&d is just symbolic. Their biggest costs are administration fees that we can probably explain by their executives paying themselves q lot more than what their deserve.
The biggest part is just pure revenue. And they try to increase that consistently without valid reason.
Not that I disagree, but wouldn't that require increasing the price even more so you could pay both companies?
I don't think the argument for "We're paying Verisign too much to be a single point of failure, so let's pay someone else who's never done it less to be a different single point of failure" really holds up.
Eh, most of what they are doing is corporate espionage with the intent of copying and cost cutting. If your business is susceptible to being undercut on price alone, your days are numbered regardless.
They spent extraordinary amounts of money to capture the market and drive competitors out of business. It's called predatory pricing and it should be punished, not rewarded.
Imagine being a competitor and then finding out the company that is crushing you had a secret deal to pay nothing while you struggled every month to pay royalties and were told over and over by the parent company that “it was the best they could do.”
Imagine not being able to figure out how they were so successful while you are struggling to turn profit and make payroll.
These kinds of walled garden ecosystems seem to be very bad for creating healthy competition, and this news is just adds to the *massive* mountain of evidence of shady behavior by every company that controls one.
That sounds like abuse of a monopoly position to me. They keep the horrendous status quo as bad as possible so their new product looks good by comparison.
This is big business pretending to be small to distract attention from market dominance, and pretending to be creative to distract attention from a strategy of acquisition rather than origination.
Your argument is valid, but scale matters. Think of a game of Monopoly; you can usually tell who's going to win well before the game concludes, and you can guess which players will lose well before that.
They apparently buy up any competition to keep the market small. There have been other similar tech promised by startups but they buy them up. Pretty interesting! Infuriating too, of course. But the system is what it is. I'm surprised they can't make more money by cross licensing the tech and just granting royalties. I'm no economics expert though.
I expect a larger cost from violating the trust of their customers. They'll lose many and if they do grow, grow more slowly. It's an advantage to their competitors.
They have stable negligible costs. R&d is just symbolic. Their biggest costs are administration fees that we can probably explain by their executives paying themselves q lot more than what their deserve.
The biggest part is just pure revenue. And they try to increase that consistently without valid reason.
reply