> That said, I'm not sure that realistically, market-decreasing tactics really exist in most cases -- I can't think of a real world example.
What do you mean? Of the Coke/Pepsi type market? Giants whacking away at each other?
If you are looking more broadly - the 'market decreasing tactics' is one aspect of what the innovator's dilemma is about. One of my favorite VC types, likes to invest in companies that fill the following thesis: "AcmeCo is a new entrant, with some cool tools, into an aging $50B (or whatever) / year industry. When AcmeCo is done lighting a neutron bomb in the industry and the dust settles, it is now a $5B industry, and AcmeCo is the last man standing with 60%+ market share."
> The collusion argument is certainly interesting.
That it is. I had not come across some of the structure of the argumentation in this article before.
What do you mean? Of the Coke/Pepsi type market? Giants whacking away at each other?
If you are looking more broadly - the 'market decreasing tactics' is one aspect of what the innovator's dilemma is about. One of my favorite VC types, likes to invest in companies that fill the following thesis: "AcmeCo is a new entrant, with some cool tools, into an aging $50B (or whatever) / year industry. When AcmeCo is done lighting a neutron bomb in the industry and the dust settles, it is now a $5B industry, and AcmeCo is the last man standing with 60%+ market share."
> The collusion argument is certainly interesting.
That it is. I had not come across some of the structure of the argumentation in this article before.