4 ms·

No, I realise that. My question is how are they supposed to hold a monoply or dominance, when there is nothing but preference or lazyness stopping anyone from s

No, I realise that. My question is how are they supposed to hold a monoply or dominance, when there is nothing but preference or lazyness stopping anyone from switching to a competing service?

calcifer 9y ago
> nothing but preference or lazyness Those two (but especially preference) are extremely strong motivators for humans to choose one product over the other. But even if it wasn't, the law is there the protect the citizens and their livelihoods, not one company's supposed right to hold a monopoly.
- harryf 9y ago
  A lot of time, research and money has gone into feeding those preferences and laziness. The patterns to create habit forming products are well known - even books about it http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp There probably needs to a category of consumer software where the argument "but you could always use an alternative" should not apply, when evaluating monopolies. Once you have network effects for example, you have the foundations for a monopoly. WhatsApp is probably a monopoly by now, for example: if all you're friends are using it, you don't really have a choice, even though there are alternatives.
  - interfixus 9y ago
    Of course I have a choice. Not using WhatsApp.
mehwoot 9y ago
How the monopoly arises is irrelevant to the law. Even if it's just collective laziness, it is still illegal to use that monopoly to influence other markets.
mattmanser 9y ago
I suggest you read the wiki article[1], it's actually very good at answering your question. The whole article is worth reading, not just the section I linked answering your specific question. Dominance is reflected by the reality of market share, not by whether or not someone could theoretically switch search engine. In the EU they have a very dominant position (95% I think?). It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_...
- interfixus 9y ago
  It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux I not only could, I most certainly did. The situation was different, though. Microsoft Windows had a kind of real monoply, since it was - and is - difficult to find a retail pc without the damned thing preinstalled and included in the price. No such mechanism exists concerning Google, as long as we politely keep Android out of the picture. Mind you, my position back then was more or less the same with regard to EU vs MS as it is today, with Google taking over: I dislike both companies. I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around.
  - kazen44 9y ago
    I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around. why do you find the EU terrifying? (also, the EU is not exactly monolithic considering it is not a single entity in many areas, but that is another point entirely).
Nokinside 9y ago
It's not just customer choice. They have all the classical barriers for entry for anyone trying to provide similar product quality. Even if someone manages to beat them temporarily, Google can compete with prices (of ads typically) so low that they can't make profits but Google can. They bleed out anyone trying to compete. Economies of scale, network externalities and vertical and horizontal integration means that popular internet services are king of the hill type business. Bigger and larger translates to smaller cost per user, cheaper ads and higher quality. There can be only few really big players and they create natural barriers to entry for anyone else. All classical barriers of entry apply to Google, FB, Amazon: * Economies scale production * Limit pricing * High set-up costs * High sunk costs * Advertising * brand loyalty * vertical integration * horizontal integration

No, I realise that. My question is how are they supposed to hold a monoply or dominance, when there is nothing but preference or lazyness stopping anyone from switching to a competing service?

calcifer 9y ago

> nothing but preference or lazyness Those two (but especially preference) are extremely strong motivators for humans to choose one product over the other. But even if it wasn't, the law is there the protect the citizens and their livelihoods, not one company's supposed right to hold a monopoly.

harryf 9y ago
A lot of time, research and money has gone into feeding those preferences and laziness. The patterns to create habit forming products are well known - even books about it http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp There probably needs to a category of consumer software where the argument "but you could always use an alternative" should not apply, when evaluating monopolies. Once you have network effects for example, you have the foundations for a monopoly. WhatsApp is probably a monopoly by now, for example: if all you're friends are using it, you don't really have a choice, even though there are alternatives.
- interfixus 9y ago
  Of course I have a choice. Not using WhatsApp.

mehwoot 9y ago

How the monopoly arises is irrelevant to the law. Even if it's just collective laziness, it is still illegal to use that monopoly to influence other markets.

mattmanser 9y ago

I suggest you read the wiki article[1], it's actually very good at answering your question. The whole article is worth reading, not just the section I linked answering your specific question. Dominance is reflected by the reality of market share, not by whether or not someone could theoretically switch search engine. In the EU they have a very dominant position (95% I think?). It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_...

interfixus 9y ago
It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux I not only could, I most certainly did. The situation was different, though. Microsoft Windows had a kind of real monoply, since it was - and is - difficult to find a retail pc without the damned thing preinstalled and included in the price. No such mechanism exists concerning Google, as long as we politely keep Android out of the picture. Mind you, my position back then was more or less the same with regard to EU vs MS as it is today, with Google taking over: I dislike both companies. I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around.
- kazen44 9y ago
  I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around. why do you find the EU terrifying? (also, the EU is not exactly monolithic considering it is not a single entity in many areas, but that is another point entirely).

Nokinside 9y ago

It's not just customer choice. They have all the classical barriers for entry for anyone trying to provide similar product quality. Even if someone manages to beat them temporarily, Google can compete with prices (of ads typically) so low that they can't make profits but Google can. They bleed out anyone trying to compete. Economies of scale, network externalities and vertical and horizontal integration means that popular internet services are king of the hill type business. Bigger and larger translates to smaller cost per user, cheaper ads and higher quality. There can be only few really big players and they create natural barriers to entry for anyone else. All classical barriers of entry apply to Google, FB, Amazon: * Economies scale production * Limit pricing * High set-up costs * High sunk costs * Advertising * brand loyalty * vertical integration * horizontal integration