Conglomerates that do B2C for money will always beat upstarts as their customer unit average cost will be lower and per unit attributable revenue will be higher.
If the only thing that a customer cares about is paying the minimum amount, the customer should not be surprised that their choices would be limited to conglomerates.
Independent restaurants are a lot more expensive than national chains and make a lot less money than the national chains. If one's only goal is to feed oneself in a restaurant, one is better off going to chain one.
Fine but that’s not the parent’s point. You shouldn’t buy from local stores, local restaurants, or small shops because of some notion that you’re sticking it to large companies. You do when, for you, their products and services they offer have better value for you.
If you choose a worse or more expensive product because it’s from a small business then you’re only making yourself worse off.
> Fine but that’s not the parent’s point. You shouldn’t buy from local stores, local restaurants, or small shops because of some notion that you’re sticking it to large companies. You do when, for you, their products and services they offer have better value for you.
That's not correct: the part of the value that you get from buying from local small businesses rather than conglomerates is that you are not buying from a conglomerate, even if the local product could be considered inferior by some measure.
That's true for people who try to politicize every aspect of their lives, but this is a toxic attitude and, as the grandparent post said, you are only hurting yourself.
"I do not understand why the only companies that exist are Google, Apple and Microsoft? Where is the competition?"