You are engaging in false equivalence.
You are engaging in false equivalence.
I'm saying that it's an unintentional byproduct of the otherwise naturally healthy approach to "grow first, profit later". Just like, I'm about to release a free game in the app market, no IAP, no cost, as I'm generous. But, that can & does have unintended consequences in the ecosystem to make it harder for those who do need to profit from their similar work.
Admittedly, incumbent monopolists are usually far more cynical in this regard, but they're also more likely to get slapped by regulators for this kind of behaviour.
I was just trying to spread the word to other startups that the auction-based paid advertising model might work initially, but gets really tough to sustain as it naturally evolves.
In a non-auction based method, the evolution to "zero margin" may be a slower process. Yet those non-auction methods of paid advertising (billboards, magazine, TV) are just horrible for tracking & closing the loop as to be obsolete, and are often too expensive for startups to even enter anyway.
The best advertising is to realize that your customer service/support function is not an cost, but rather an investment in word-of-mouth advertising. Investing in great customer service is often the best modern marketing.
I'm curious where you think this is the case? Remember, your arbitrary definition of appropriate might not be the same as others'. I probably won't go either way, as I think anti-trust laws in general are not appropriate, but that's a different discussion.
Moreover, may I ask what your moral argument is for such laws? From the looks of it, most people would say: "If you have a lot of money, then you're not allowed to use it to your advantage if we perceive it as predatory". With such vague terms (unless you can make it more explicit), and it will most certainly end up having a favoritist bureaucracy grow around it.