In a competitive market, there are a hundred phone OEMs providing every combination of those things for various prices with various trade offs etc.
In a duopoly, there is one company providing A, another providing B and C, and nobody providing D or E. If you chose the company providing B and C, but you still want A, D and E, what are you supposed to do? Reward the company providing even less of what you want?
What you need is more competition.
But yeah...not a popular opinion here, I know...
Assuming it isn't regulation (e.g. patents) getting in the way, you pull up your pants and produce [A, D, and E].
If that's too rich for your blood, I suppose rewarding the company that got you something close enough at a tiny fraction of the cost is reasonable. It is hard to deny the value in that.
> What you need is more competition.
Okay, but if you aren't willing to build [A, D, and E], why would anyone else? These things aren't delivered by angels from heaven.
When a market is stuck in a local maximum, an external force would be beneficial to push it out of it.
[1] Which it is in the case of computing. Intellectual property law makes direct competition against the law.
[2] Assuming a democracy.
But who should drive such regulation then, elected representatives which represent constituents who can't be bothered to push for it..?
THAT'S the conundrum.
The market urgently requires regulation, but it also became so convenient so fast and affects end-users only indirectly, so there is no sufficient momentum to drive this change...
