mountaindewslave said:
ehhh at some point you do have to criticize a company for using insanely low margins to kill the competition. I appreciate the short term advantages it provides consumers, but in the long run it will just hurt the consumers. why? because while we get low prices from Amazon now, their competition (mostly storefront retailers, and other smaller online 1st and 3rd party stores) suffer and fail because they can't match said prices. eventually those businesses will die out from worse sales and then we will be left with only a few big retailers like Amazon. at the point in which an 'Amazon' does that they are then able to basically determine market prices on goods because of the limited competition. obviously Amazon is primarily targeting the online market but still its similar to why Wal-mart gets a lot of heat. low prices are great, sure, but when you're literally selling some things so low that you LOSE MONEY as a company, simply to eliminate the competition, that's not really good business. and in the end it hurts the consumer because in capitalism the more competition there is the more reasonable the rates/prices. not a set rule obviously, as sometimes the quality of things will make higher prices appropriate depending and when a Wal-mart (or its equivalent in any field) is paying its employees the absolute minimum or simply just manufacturing everything overseas for practical slave labor it begins to become both a short term ethical problem and a long term consumer-price problem that will bite back in the future
at any rate the same sort of applies with Microsoft, they obviously were considering purchasing Salesforce to become dominant in cloud services |
Exactly. They don't need their services. Microsoft just wanted to dominate the market. If they acquired salesforce, they would have a 27% marketshare of all CRM. Even Oracle or SAP don't have all that marketshare. However paying 70 billion (or even 55 billion for that matter) is alot just to get barely over 1/4 of all CRM marketshare.
