"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?


Well yes but now there is not a lot of choice at the top end is there?