Historically, when small competitors are merged into bigger competitors, their things don't get cheaper. Instead, there is no price competition so the big player exploits their dominance. I know. I know. Apple would never try to exploit it's dominance of anything
Apple is above letting the profit motive dominate their decision-making.
More seriously, I for one don't want "all my things in one place", nor do I like it when huge, dominant players gobble up smaller competitors. Competition is good for consumers. Robust competition is key to making a capitalistic system work for the consumer end of the equation. Reducing competition is good for corporations (at consumers expense). Reducing competition retards capitalism.
A bit back in time within my family there were these things called Coal towns. The big coal company was the one employer and they ran what was called a "Company store" (the only store). They went so far as to make their own variation of currency- called scrip- see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip#Coal_company_scrip With no competition, their employees and customers had no choice but to buy from the Company Store using the Company Currency. That was what I would consider a near ultimate example of "all in one place".
Did that result in more convenience? Well, there was no competition so there was no confusion about where to shop.
Did that result in "cheaper"? Not at all. The consumers were exploited to no end because they had no choice. Even if they could get transportation to the next Coal town (or any town), the Scrip had no value outside the company store. It was known as an economic monopoly.
Personally, I'd much rather see much more competition than less. Competition yields "cheaper" and I'll gladly sacrifice some convenience for better value. But that's just me.
Pay because Walmart wouldn't support it. The dots don't connect. Walmart has no connection with Square.
