3 ms·

Cue the "it's not a monopoly" crowd. I think we need another word for these companies that are way to big and "monopolize" certain online spaces/communities.

by d0100 6y ago

hundchenkatze 6y ago
I am in the "it's not a monopoly" crowd and yes we should definitely use other words to describe companies that do not have exclusive control over a commercial activity.
- theandrewbailey 6y ago
  Exclusive control of an activity isn't needed to be a monopoly. In the 90s, people used Netscape on Macs, but Microsoft got declared a monopoly anyway.
  - hundchenkatze 6y ago
    First I don't think your Netscape on Mac argument holds up. The antitrust suit was about IE on Windows. "[...] the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java." [0] "The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser integration. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system. Bundling them is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of IE." [0] I do agree that exclusive control may not be needed. However, Microsoft was engaging in other anti-competitive behavior. It's not like they're restricting Windows users to only use GitHub. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
    - theandrewbailey 6y ago
      That's kind of my point. Microsoft didn't hold exclusive control over operating systems nor internet browsers, but got called a monopoly in those markets anyway, despite available alternatives. Yes, there was more to it than just that. They merely had a lot of control in the market and was doing shady things.
javajosh 6y ago
defactopoly?
jedimastert 6y ago
I think that many people confuse "de facto standard" with monopoly. There are certainly other services that can do most if not all of the things Github does, it just doesn't have the audience. Does GitHub do anything to actively prohibit the use of it's competitors?
- smoe 6y ago
  Think for private repos gitlab has been a viable and fairly popular alternative for a long time. I reckon for open source the "de facto standard" plays a much bigger role, because of the user expectation to find projects on Github.

Cue the "it's not a monopoly" crowd. I think we need another word for these companies that are way to big and "monopolize" certain online spaces/communities.

by d0100 6y ago

Cue the "it's not a monopoly" crowd. I think we need another word for these companies that are way to big and "monopolize" certain online spaces/communities.

hundchenkatze 6y ago

I am in the "it's not a monopoly" crowd and yes we should definitely use other words to describe companies that do not have exclusive control over a commercial activity.

theandrewbailey 6y ago
Exclusive control of an activity isn't needed to be a monopoly. In the 90s, people used Netscape on Macs, but Microsoft got declared a monopoly anyway.
- hundchenkatze 6y ago
  First I don't think your Netscape on Mac argument holds up. The antitrust suit was about IE on Windows. "[...] the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java." [0] "The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser integration. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system. Bundling them is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of IE." [0] I do agree that exclusive control may not be needed. However, Microsoft was engaging in other anti-competitive behavior. It's not like they're restricting Windows users to only use GitHub. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
  - theandrewbailey 6y ago
    That's kind of my point. Microsoft didn't hold exclusive control over operating systems nor internet browsers, but got called a monopoly in those markets anyway, despite available alternatives. Yes, there was more to it than just that. They merely had a lot of control in the market and was doing shady things.

javajosh 6y ago

defactopoly?

jedimastert 6y ago

I think that many people confuse "de facto standard" with monopoly. There are certainly other services that can do most if not all of the things Github does, it just doesn't have the audience. Does GitHub do anything to actively prohibit the use of it's competitors?

smoe 6y ago
Think for private repos gitlab has been a viable and fairly popular alternative for a long time. I reckon for open source the "de facto standard" plays a much bigger role, because of the user expectation to find projects on Github.