3 ms·

I'm curious: Was this facetious? or were you serious?

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
If you don't assume that he's talking about Apple (or, for that matter, Google), which is implied in neither his, nor the parent post, then he's entirely correct and the downvotes are totally unwarranted.
- ugh 16y ago
  What’s the connection between monopolies and corporate rivalries? That comment just doesn’t make any sense.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    People are talking about corporate rivalries as a special case of free market competition. Price wars and innovation races benefit the consumer in these cases. In the case of a monopoly a potential corporate rival gets bought and shut down, or locked out of a market, or has their price undercut until they go out of business and then the price goes back up even further to compensate. Basically the consumer loses. So corporate rivalry, no matter how fierce, is great for the consumer as long as both are forced to fight fair.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Uhm, yeah, but the consumer doesn’t lose, either? Either way, it’s a idle fact with no relation to the discussion, except if you wanted to suggest that either Google or Apple have a monopoly. Which is obviously bullshit.
      - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        Are you arguing that monopolies don't hurt consumers? There's valid arguments that could be advanced in that direction but since we live in a world where the common understanding is that monopolies are bad for consumers, it would be helpful if you were less oblique about your meaning. Mentioning monopolies in the context of the benefits of competition doesn't seem irrelevant to me, quite the opposite, and perhaps as a result I didn't immediately jump to the conclusion that it was an attack on Apple or Google or anyone else.
        ugh 16y ago
        Uhm, no. That’s not what I said at all. Monopolies are bad but companies competing against a monopolist won’t make it worse.
        ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        I think it's the monopolist "competing" against the other companies that we're worried about. Where by competing I mean doing all those things I listed a few posts back that reduce consumer choice and competition in the marketplace.
        ugh 16y ago
        Sure, but that’s not surprising. Isn’t it obvious that the concept of “competition” doesn’t make much sense when talking about a monopolist? And it’s also obvious that it would be stupid if the monopolist didn’t try to crush any possible emerging competition. It’s logical, it’s obvious, it’s not worth mentioning.
icey 16y ago
A surprisingly (and unfortunately) large number of people seem to think that having a large market share of something is a monopoly.
wtallis 16y ago
It was a serious, honest answer to a question that was in hindsight probably not a serious, honest question. (Certainly the pattern of votes indicates that it was not interpreted as such.) ZeroGravitas has done a fine job of explaining the reasoning behind my answer.

If you don't assume that he's talking about Apple (or, for that matter, Google), which is implied in neither his, nor the parent post, then he's entirely correct and the downvotes are totally unwarranted.

ugh 16y ago
What’s the connection between monopolies and corporate rivalries? That comment just doesn’t make any sense.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  People are talking about corporate rivalries as a special case of free market competition. Price wars and innovation races benefit the consumer in these cases. In the case of a monopoly a potential corporate rival gets bought and shut down, or locked out of a market, or has their price undercut until they go out of business and then the price goes back up even further to compensate. Basically the consumer loses. So corporate rivalry, no matter how fierce, is great for the consumer as long as both are forced to fight fair.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Uhm, yeah, but the consumer doesn’t lose, either? Either way, it’s a idle fact with no relation to the discussion, except if you wanted to suggest that either Google or Apple have a monopoly. Which is obviously bullshit.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      Are you arguing that monopolies don't hurt consumers? There's valid arguments that could be advanced in that direction but since we live in a world where the common understanding is that monopolies are bad for consumers, it would be helpful if you were less oblique about your meaning. Mentioning monopolies in the context of the benefits of competition doesn't seem irrelevant to me, quite the opposite, and perhaps as a result I didn't immediately jump to the conclusion that it was an attack on Apple or Google or anyone else.
      - ugh 16y ago
        Uhm, no. That’s not what I said at all. Monopolies are bad but companies competing against a monopolist won’t make it worse.
        ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        I think it's the monopolist "competing" against the other companies that we're worried about. Where by competing I mean doing all those things I listed a few posts back that reduce consumer choice and competition in the marketplace.
        ugh 16y ago
        Sure, but that’s not surprising. Isn’t it obvious that the concept of “competition” doesn’t make much sense when talking about a monopolist? And it’s also obvious that it would be stupid if the monopolist didn’t try to crush any possible emerging competition. It’s logical, it’s obvious, it’s not worth mentioning.

icey 16y ago

A surprisingly (and unfortunately) large number of people seem to think that having a large market share of something is a monopoly.

wtallis 16y ago

It was a serious, honest answer to a question that was in hindsight probably not a serious, honest question. (Certainly the pattern of votes indicates that it was not interpreted as such.) ZeroGravitas has done a fine job of explaining the reasoning behind my answer.