3 ms·
In the EU the rules against anti-competitive behaviour are based on market dominance. Remember that term. That is how Google got fined even if they don't have a
by tripzilch 7y ago
In the EU the rules against anti-competitive behaviour are based on market dominance. Remember that term. That is how Google got fined even if they don't have a strict monopoly.
Even though it's technically incorrect to refer to these situations as "monopoly", that still happens in conversation.
But if you then correct someone for not using the strict meaning of monopoly properly, then really you're just showing that you are unaware of the regulations around anti-competitive behaviour. The actual rules don't mention "monopoly", they are centred all around market dominance.
It should be pretty clear what people mean in this context when they say "monopoly" and it doesn't really help to take that word literally, since all the actual regulations are about market dominance.
- scarface74 7y agoYes and Google has 70%+ mobile phone market share and was dominant in the search engine market. Neither is applicable to Apple. * But if you then correct someone for not using the strict meaning of monopoly properly, then really you're just showing that you are unaware of the regulations around anti-competitive behaviour. The actual rules don't mention "monopoly", they are centred all around market dominance.* I guess if I’m “unaware” so is both the EU and the United States since you still have failed to show where either government has defined a monopoly as a minor player nor has either government defined a market as narrowly as you’re trying to. What next? Apple has a monopoly on smart speakers running whatever variant of iOS that the HomePod runs? What random posters on HN “mean” by monopoly is irrelevant.