3 ms·
Hm. If I understand the cellophane paradox, it says that the "substitutes exist" does not imply "there is no monopoly". That seems different from your argument
by papeda 6y ago
Hm. If I understand the cellophane paradox, it says that the "substitutes exist" does not imply "there is no monopoly".
That seems different from your argument, which I understand to be "only a monopolist would make it easy for consumers to choose a competitor". But again, the conclusion that Google is a monopolist seems to be baked into this logic -- would you really say Google is not a monopolist if they did not offer search engine choice?
- Dylan16807 6y ago> which I understand to be "only a monopolist would make it easy for consumers to choose a competitor" No, not "only". The argument is that while non-monopolists have a motivation to add those choices, monopolists have a motivation too. Therefore seeing the end result isn't very strong evidence for whether something is a monopoly or not.
- papeda 6y agoI agree with your statement. The comment I was responding to does not: > If anything this is evidence of Google’s search engine monopoly and Google built the selection feature into Chrome it in furtherance of that monopoly power