More interesting to me is that this shouldn't be an issue, they should just lose out to the competition organically.
And yet here we are.
And yet here we are.
Should a firm with a history of these types of problems lose out to competition organically? Sure, but there is no binary “losing out tot he competition” switch that just gets flipped one day.
This is part of the reason why I get so frustrated with the laissez faire mindset/meme.
Crucially, these models don't actually state that the companies that do the best job will win out, but that the most profitable ones do.
The problem arises when screwing over the user is more profitable than doing it properly.
That's why the tech industry is so ethically corrupt today. There's very little regulation to make dark patterns and sloppy security practices more costly than they are profitable.
Network effects and monopolistic (anti-competitive) features allow bad companies to survive today. Monopolistic practices are probably a worse problem today than in the 1920s.
In the 1920s governments used regulation to break up huge firms and defeat advantages due to cost of capital (hard to start a new railroad in the 20s because the cost of trains and tracks was just so high.) Today, cost of capital is relatively less important, and things like switching cost and bundling and people valuing their time and convenience are bigger factors. We need anti-trust/government regulation to address those.
(For example, in the case of password managers, imagine if there were laws requiring publicized security audits and seamless migration to a new service of customer's choice. A competitor to Lastpass might have arrived by now.
Sundar Pichai being asked about if someone is handpicking search results comes to mind, as an illustration
Where is the the duopoly, and who's being forced out of the marketplace due to lack of government regulation of password managers?