content: The problem with this is a problem with capitalism in general. There is far more money to be made no competing than there is in competing once a 'winner' in a given industry or region has emerged. The naive capitalistic argument is "Well, there IS a ton of money to be made. They can build up their infrastructure and start selling their product for half as much as the other guy while still making a ton of profit in the process and take all the customers!" You see the problem there, right? The other company doesn't remain just blissfully unaware of what's happening. Let's say you spend billions of dollars getting infrastructure, marketing, and all this other important stuff set up. And now you're set and ready to change the price for a default entry from $100 to $50 and make it all back. Well the giant conglomerate instead now changes their prices to $50 as well. You get a few customers who'd go to you just to spite being screwed for so long, but people are generally lazy and if there's no price difference they're not going to move over. You just spent billions of dollars getting into an industry where you're not making any money. The article hits on the more technical reasons (which are also valid), but this fundamental issue is in my opinion an even bigger one. There is absolutely 0 incentive to compete.