3 ms·
United States v. Microsoft Corp. happened because Windows stood at 95%+ market share. It hasn't happened again because no platform has risen to that level of ma
by veave 3y ago
United States v. Microsoft Corp. happened because Windows stood at 95%+ market share. It hasn't happened again because no platform has risen to that level of market share.
- nolok 3y agoMonopoly is not a necessary condition for antitrust case.
- orra 3y agoJust as well! Oligopolies are almost as bad as monopolies, for rent seeking and stifling competition. I don't know about US law, but EU competition law is concerned about “significant market power” and not (just) monopolies.
- inefficient 3y agoWhen talking about modeling oligopolies and monopolies, often oligopolies have worse results.
- plagiarist 3y agoWe need more antitrust on everything. Things are not working if consumers have no choices in practice. "Support Nestle or just never purchase any snack or drink," isn't a real choice.
- veave 3y agoIt also isn't a reality, and if it was, it would be a monopoly, and it would be dismantled.
- bwat49 3y agohonestly, I don't think it would happen again even if a platform did rise to that level of marketshare
- FormerBandmate 3y agoIf you view $1000 iPhones and $200 Androids as the same market, yes. If you view them as different markets because no one’s picking between the two, Apple has 75% market share in premium phones and Android has 100% market share (I do not consider Jio flip phones as a real competitor) in non premium phones