3 ms·
Your argument here is basically that Apple charges a lot so they must be a monopoly. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Apple's share of the s
by cwhiz 6y ago
Your argument here is basically that Apple charges a lot so they must be a monopoly. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Apple's share of the smartphone market is shrinking, not growing. The basic premise of your argument is factually invalid.
The fact that Apple can charge a premium despite being a minority player, and despite their marketshare shrinking, is evidence of their excellent marketing, not a monopoly.
To be a monopoly you must either have a dominant position in the market or your behavior must be such that you are attempting to gain a dominant position in the market. Or you can just make shit up because you don't like Apple.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Your argument here is basically that Apple charges a lot so they must be a monopoly. You are wrong in two respects. First, I am not taking a position o whether Apple meets the test for monopoly. Second, the test is pricing power (the ability to raise prices without defection to competitors) not “high prices”. This is more important than how many players might be in any popular description of the market, because it is test of whether those other players are in fact competing with the player in question, or whether they are in objectively separate markets even if the usual popular description is of a single market. > Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true Correct, wanting “are there more players in what is typically described in the press as the market in which the actor is participating” to be the main legal test for monopoly instead of pricing power does not make it so.