5 ms·

Though the word implies otherwise a monopoly is not defined by the lack of competitors. At least not in a legal sense anymore. It is defined by it's marketshar

Though the word implies otherwise a monopoly is not defined by the lack of competitors. At least not in a legal sense anymore. It is defined by it's marketshare. And google search is by and large a monopoly in this regard having ~90% market share in virtually all segments of the market.

Tor3 8y ago
>[..] a monopoly is not defined by the lack of competitors.[..]It is defined by it's marketshare. No, I can't agree. I don't even consider Microsoft a monopoly, even though their product comes pre-installed on every PC you can buy in shops. If you can't get any alternative ISP (to e.g. AT&T) where you live, by any means, now that is a monopoly.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Surely you can just move house to get a different ISP and so in line with your other reasoning it can't be a monopoly?
  - Tor3 8y ago
    Move house? To where? In areas with only a single ISP, and that ISP 'owns' the poles/whatever, you can move as much as you want. Nothing changes. Or did you mean moving to another city? Another part of the country? Really? It should be obvious that it's perfectly possible to define something as a monopoly in a certain area. If a monopoly could only be defined as a monopoly if it were global, there wouldn't be many.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      For the record, I do agree that ISPs are monopolies (or oligopolies) in many parts of the US and other countries as well. However they are not the only form of monopoly, and I don't understand why you seem to be saying that the statement "Google is a monopoly" is implicitly saying "ISPs are not a monopoly". They're both monopolies, just different kinds -- the geographic argument doesn't make sense for websites for instance (outside of countries that massively censor the internet).
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Though the word implies otherwise a monopoly is not defined by the lack of competitors. At least not in a legal sense anymore. Yes, it is, though in practice that's based on complex factual analysis of whether there is real competition not whether there are other players in the same descriptive market. > It is defined by it's marketshare. No, marketshare is a “same descriptive market” test that people casually talking about competition use; legally, the more relevant tests are things like pricing power—can the alleged monopolist raise prices in some range without losing sales to a competitor. You can have a very large marketshare in a descriptive market but lack pricing power, or have small marketshare in a descriptive market and have pricing power because the market described is really multiple segregated markets in practice.

Tor3 8y ago

>[..] a monopoly is not defined by the lack of competitors.[..]It is defined by it's marketshare. No, I can't agree. I don't even consider Microsoft a monopoly, even though their product comes pre-installed on every PC you can buy in shops. If you can't get any alternative ISP (to e.g. AT&T) where you live, by any means, now that is a monopoly.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Surely you can just move house to get a different ISP and so in line with your other reasoning it can't be a monopoly?
- Tor3 8y ago
  Move house? To where? In areas with only a single ISP, and that ISP 'owns' the poles/whatever, you can move as much as you want. Nothing changes. Or did you mean moving to another city? Another part of the country? Really? It should be obvious that it's perfectly possible to define something as a monopoly in a certain area. If a monopoly could only be defined as a monopoly if it were global, there wouldn't be many.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    For the record, I do agree that ISPs are monopolies (or oligopolies) in many parts of the US and other countries as well. However they are not the only form of monopoly, and I don't understand why you seem to be saying that the statement "Google is a monopoly" is implicitly saying "ISPs are not a monopoly". They're both monopolies, just different kinds -- the geographic argument doesn't make sense for websites for instance (outside of countries that massively censor the internet).

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Though the word implies otherwise a monopoly is not defined by the lack of competitors. At least not in a legal sense anymore. Yes, it is, though in practice that's based on complex factual analysis of whether there is real competition not whether there are other players in the same descriptive market. > It is defined by it's marketshare. No, marketshare is a “same descriptive market” test that people casually talking about competition use; legally, the more relevant tests are things like pricing power—can the alleged monopolist raise prices in some range without losing sales to a competitor. You can have a very large marketshare in a descriptive market but lack pricing power, or have small marketshare in a descriptive market and have pricing power because the market described is really multiple segregated markets in practice.