2 ms·

I think I did an adequate job in defining a definition above. Ask a representative sample of 'random' people * For an alternative * That still exists

I think I did an adequate job in defining a definition above. Ask a representative sample of 'random' people * For an alternative * That still exists * That they actually considered using within the last year Facebook fails this test because they have literally no competition within the same niche* (that the average person, on average, is aware of anyway). Twitter as a specialized platform is in somewhat a similar area, however people can just group chat on several other platforms and if you re-framed the question like this people could probably come up with things they would or already use as an alternative. "If [THING] suddenly went out of business, what would you use instead?"

ucaetano 8y ago
I Facebook went out of business, people would instead message more on other messaging platforms, text people more, read news in other news platforms and so on. There are plenty of opportunities for all of those options. Consider, for example, the Cola soda market. There are countries in which Coca-Cola holds 95% or more of the market share for Colas, or even for sodas. Does that make it a monopoly? No. Because Colas are just one type of soda drinks, and soda drinks are just one type of drink. If Coca-Cola disappeared and there was no other Cola drink available, Cola drinkers would drink a lemon-flavored drink, or fruit juice, or just plain water. So your definition doesn't work, exactly because you didn't define the market. And hey, this isn't just my opinion, it is how monopoly is defined in economics. Particularly regarding something that we haven't talked about yet, which is monopoly pricing. There is no monopoly pricing in any market that Facebook operates. Quite the opposite, actually, ad prices have been going down continuously. It is always interesting to see people in HN trying to recreate economics from first principles.

ucaetano 8y ago

I Facebook went out of business, people would instead message more on other messaging platforms, text people more, read news in other news platforms and so on. There are plenty of opportunities for all of those options. Consider, for example, the Cola soda market. There are countries in which Coca-Cola holds 95% or more of the market share for Colas, or even for sodas. Does that make it a monopoly? No. Because Colas are just one type of soda drinks, and soda drinks are just one type of drink. If Coca-Cola disappeared and there was no other Cola drink available, Cola drinkers would drink a lemon-flavored drink, or fruit juice, or just plain water. So your definition doesn't work, exactly because you didn't define the market. And hey, this isn't just my opinion, it is how monopoly is defined in economics. Particularly regarding something that we haven't talked about yet, which is monopoly pricing. There is no monopoly pricing in any market that Facebook operates. Quite the opposite, actually, ad prices have been going down continuously. It is always interesting to see people in HN trying to recreate economics from first principles.