Unless you're suggesting collusion, that doesn't seem to make sense. Prices should fall in a competitive market, regardless of what profit a manufacturer would ideally like to maximize.
Collusion has already happened in this market. I don't need that, though. I've observed a pattern in a lot of markets where big players, esp wielding patents, will turn into cartels (intentional or emergent) that act in both individual self-interest and collective self-interest. A race to the bottom wouldn't benefit any of them. So, they compete in little ways to fight for market share but make sure the business models keep the profits up.
The telecoms, both cellular and ISP's, are where this is most obvious where the compete in the most incremental way saying its impossible to do anything else. Then, a small play comes in doing what they're doing... sometimes the same way... with more benefit at a tiny fraction of the cost. Suddenly, they can afford to do the same with their existing infrastructure. Real competition would've brought in unlimited plans in cell phones or gigabit in broadband much sooner for similar or lower prices.
The largest vendors of RAM are likely a cartel in practice. It's the best outcome for each of them to not race to the bottom. They don't even need to talk to know that. That they can reinforce it with patents they're more likely to have than the smaller players is icing on the cake.
Appreciate it. Going by abstracts, it looks like there's a cost advantage to NAND, the DRAM people are greedy cartels, and might have to merge to reduce costs. Looks like the greed is backfiring but we must remember CEO's and boards focus on short-term due to incentives. They might still "win" even if the firms start losing.
Cellular providers and ISPs are both regulated (especially ISPs, where a cable provider might have a legal monopoly in an entire municipality). Doesn't seem the same.
Which is irrelevant jf their day-to-day operations, esp speed and pricing, arent regulated in a way that forces one up and other down. It doesn't help that the head of regulation is usually from telecoms or their lobbyists. Or that they bribe politicians to protect their interests like getting states to ban taxpayer-funded networks.
Comments
Unless you're suggesting collusion, that doesn't seem to make sense. Prices should fall in a competitive market, regardless of what profit a manufacturer would ideally like to maximize.
Collusion has already happened in this market. I don't need that, though. I've observed a pattern in a lot of markets where big players, esp wielding patents, will turn into cartels (intentional or emergent) that act in both individual self-interest and collective self-interest. A race to the bottom wouldn't benefit any of them. So, they compete in little ways to fight for market share but make sure the business models keep the profits up.
The telecoms, both cellular and ISP's, are where this is most obvious where the compete in the most incremental way saying its impossible to do anything else. Then, a small play comes in doing what they're doing... sometimes the same way... with more benefit at a tiny fraction of the cost. Suddenly, they can afford to do the same with their existing infrastructure. Real competition would've brought in unlimited plans in cell phones or gigabit in broadband much sooner for similar or lower prices.
The largest vendors of RAM are likely a cartel in practice. It's the best outcome for each of them to not race to the bottom. They don't even need to talk to know that. That they can reinforce it with patents they're more likely to have than the smaller players is icing on the cake.
Objective Analysis has an entire report on this: http://objective-analysis.com/Reports.html#Consolidation
Appreciate it. Going by abstracts, it looks like there's a cost advantage to NAND, the DRAM people are greedy cartels, and might have to merge to reduce costs. Looks like the greed is backfiring but we must remember CEO's and boards focus on short-term due to incentives. They might still "win" even if the firms start losing.
Cellular providers and ISPs are both regulated (especially ISPs, where a cable provider might have a legal monopoly in an entire municipality). Doesn't seem the same.
Which is irrelevant jf their day-to-day operations, esp speed and pricing, arent regulated in a way that forces one up and other down. It doesn't help that the head of regulation is usually from telecoms or their lobbyists. Or that they bribe politicians to protect their interests like getting states to ban taxpayer-funded networks.