By their buying decisions, they actively decide that this is what they want.
By their buying decisions, they actively decide that this is what they want.
I don't like Android, I don't like iOS. What do I buy ? Not the one that is best for me, because I don't have a real choice, but the one I will hate the least.
Not buying is also a possible decision. You should of course choose this choice if all other available option have a negative net value for you. The fact that you decided for Android or iOS shows that both of these choices have a positive net value for you - so what are you complaining about?
> The fact that you decided for Android or iOS shows that both of these choices have a positive net value for you - so what are you complaining about?
Android suits me more, but I would like to be able to run multiple VPNs at the same time. What do I buy ?
I didn't buy Android because this is what I want, but because it's the closest. But how do I drive the decisions to where I want ? Am I supposed to wait that a million alternatives are created and have the same level as Android, then only can I buy what I need ? This just doesn't work.
This means the vendor makes no money from you. If a lot of people decide this way, the vendor will have to adjust or go bust - this is called "market adjustment".
The fact that you did buy tells the market that what you bought is of net-positive value for you.
This doesn't mean the market is efficient. It means the market misunderstands itself.
As an example, I hate every option available for phones right now but I can't just not have a phone. I have no real choice.
Whichever decision I make will send the wrong signal to "the market" and won't influence it to improve.
Thanks 'free market'.
Not to mention lineage means no verified boot