4 ms·

They don’t have 90% [0]. They have about 70% of just desktop, but there’s lots of competition with devices since desktops have replacements with tablets and pho

They don’t have 90% [0]. They have about 70% of just desktop, but there’s lots of competition with devices since desktops have replacements with tablets and phones and other devices. Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Back in the 90s, Microsoft was found to harm other browsers. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide

Retric 3y ago
Read up on past monopoly busts, you don’t need an overwhelming market share to be broken up. Standard oil was down to 64% and that didn’t save it.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  People have this "folk" definition of monopoly saying that a monopoly is 100% total market domination. Maybe because this is the win condition for the board game Monopoly? I think this idea is a serious impediment to addressing anti-competitive behavior in America.
- prepend 3y ago
  When antitrust proceedings starts against Standard Oil in 1904, they had 91% market share [0]. By 1911 when they were broken up they were down to 64%, but that’s because the case progressed. And after the breakup they had 0%. But I think if Standard had 64% in the beginning and there was a competitive market, they would not have been broken up. [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oil/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oi...
  - Retric 3y ago
    Which is why I said down to, they didn’t get to say we’re below the magic X% number can you please leave us alone. But presumably if their market share had fallen to 10% that would have happened. As to when the case started, it’s impossible to know what the minimum threshold was. It could just as easily been well below 64% as people where in monopoly busting push at the time.
wak90 3y ago
>Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power. It is written into US law that the company has a legal duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a distinction without a difference.
- prepend 3y ago
  The issue is that having a monopoly in the US isn’t a reason to break up a company, even though it might make it possible to abuse. Antitrust law in the US requires some consumer harm, so it’s the abuse of monopoly power that’s the crux, not just having it. And duty to shareholders would actually mean that management would not abuse their monopoly power because of the risk of breakup.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  Basically all of this is false. The legal duty to shareholders doesn't mean that companies need to violate the law. In reality, saying " we don't abuse our market position to avoid regulatory scrutiny" is acting in the interests of shareholders, and a lawsuit wouldn't go further. Otherwise you'd be saying that companies had a duty to break all laws in pursuit of shareholder value, which is obviously silly. And yeah under us law you have to prove consumer harm or anticompetitive practice, not just having a significant market majority.
  - wak90 3y ago
    I am aware of the legal duty. The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value but not explicitly break the law. What do you think this looks like in practice? Because it makes logical sense to me that monopolistic companies would use their monopolistic power to come as close as they can with anti competitive behavior without attracting scrutiny which is why you break them up in the first place. And it's not theoretical, there are many examples not least of which is Microsoft.
    - 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

Read up on past monopoly busts, you don’t need an overwhelming market share to be broken up. Standard oil was down to 64% and that didn’t save it.

mcpackieh 3y ago
People have this "folk" definition of monopoly saying that a monopoly is 100% total market domination. Maybe because this is the win condition for the board game Monopoly? I think this idea is a serious impediment to addressing anti-competitive behavior in America.
prepend 3y ago
When antitrust proceedings starts against Standard Oil in 1904, they had 91% market share [0]. By 1911 when they were broken up they were down to 64%, but that’s because the case progressed. And after the breakup they had 0%. But I think if Standard had 64% in the beginning and there was a competitive market, they would not have been broken up. [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oil/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oi...
- Retric 3y ago
  Which is why I said down to, they didn’t get to say we’re below the magic X% number can you please leave us alone. But presumably if their market share had fallen to 10% that would have happened. As to when the case started, it’s impossible to know what the minimum threshold was. It could just as easily been well below 64% as people where in monopoly busting push at the time.

wak90 3y ago

>Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power. It is written into US law that the company has a legal duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a distinction without a difference.

prepend 3y ago
The issue is that having a monopoly in the US isn’t a reason to break up a company, even though it might make it possible to abuse. Antitrust law in the US requires some consumer harm, so it’s the abuse of monopoly power that’s the crux, not just having it. And duty to shareholders would actually mean that management would not abuse their monopoly power because of the risk of breakup.
joshuamorton 3y ago
Basically all of this is false. The legal duty to shareholders doesn't mean that companies need to violate the law. In reality, saying " we don't abuse our market position to avoid regulatory scrutiny" is acting in the interests of shareholders, and a lawsuit wouldn't go further. Otherwise you'd be saying that companies had a duty to break all laws in pursuit of shareholder value, which is obviously silly. And yeah under us law you have to prove consumer harm or anticompetitive practice, not just having a significant market majority.
- wak90 3y ago
  I am aware of the legal duty. The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value but not explicitly break the law. What do you think this looks like in practice? Because it makes logical sense to me that monopolistic companies would use their monopolistic power to come as close as they can with anti competitive behavior without attracting scrutiny which is why you break them up in the first place. And it's not theoretical, there are many examples not least of which is Microsoft.
  - 3y ago