The problem is defining a market. There is no monopoly abuse in the tablet
market, because the difference between a tablet, netbook, smartphone, et al is
small and there are plenty of competitors.
Personally, I think a blanket ban on buying market share above 20% would make
sense, but you can't really enforce that at a "small nation" level.
As an example of the mess constrained thinking can cause, look at the shoe
polish market in the UK a few years back. We had 100% of the market shared
between two companies, Cherry and Kiwi. They wanted to merge.
The MMC stepped in and said "we're going to investigate - we don't want to
have one company with 100% by default". Bearing in mind the shoe polish
market is part of the wider shoe cleaning market, and the polish market was
eroding rapidly, the company pushing the merger did exactly as it threatened -
it wanted out, and because it couldn't sell, it shut down. So the MMC got what
it didn't want (100% market share by one company), along with a couple thousand
lost jobs!
And the MMC had no comeback against that outcome - the company that shut down
was haemorhaging, and the planned merger was intended to save jobs, not money.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
