The issue with this is that you’re contributing to a never ending feedback loop.
If a product is successful enough to enable convenient features that everyone likes, that means that nobody will give competition a fair shake because they “just don’t have those features that I need”.
I know that most customers would argue that it’s not their responsibility to give up on superior services just for the sake of giving competition a chance, but then whose responsibility is it?
In the end, products can only grow if you allow them to grow. Same thing with arguments like nobody using Peertube because YouTube has more content creators, or how nobody would use kbin or Lemmy because reddit has a much larger contributing userbase.
If you don’t give competition a chance, you’re only contributing to a monopoly. And then you’re as much to blame as the company that’s doing the monopoly
but then whose responsibility is it?
The competitors? If they had customers without adding those features they also would have no incentive to add them.
Yeah, but sometimes certain features can only be added when the company has a lot of money to back them.
Stuff like extremely fast buffering speeds due to good internet infrastructure to datacenters or elaborate DDoS protection for building entire clusters to cushion against huge data flows.
Or, if those are too technical, just think of the content creators on YouTube, who don’t want to upload their videos to other platforms because YouTube is effectively a monopoly now, and so it would be pointless to give other platforms the time of day.
If not enough content creators give competitors the chance, then how can they be expected to grow enough to stand a chance, in the first place?
