3 ms·

They do indeed: monopoly | məˈnɒpəli | noun (plural monopolies) 1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service: the

by ghusto 3y ago

They do indeed: monopoly | məˈnɒpəli | noun (plural monopolies) 1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service: the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting. • a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service: passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies | France's electricity monopoly, EDF. In case it's not clear from the definition, notice the first example's deliberate pluralisation; "largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies". Your definition is both wrong, and I suspect made in bad faith anyway.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> In case it's not clear from the definition, notice the first example's deliberate pluralisation; "largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies". The example is, presumably, referring to a single entity that provided “passenger services” between two destinations, and no other entity provided passenger services between those destinations. But since there could be multiple sets of destinations that single entities provided all passenger services for, then there would be multiple monopolies. Which does not contradict kemayo’s post. There is no reason to use monopoly (in this context) when more accurate vocabulary exists, such as duopoly or oligopoly.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > But since there could be multiple sets of destinations that single entities provided all passenger services for, then there would be multiple monopolies. Which is precisely the point. Take as "destinations" the two parties to any given transaction, i.e. a particular software developer and a particular user. If the user has an iPhone, they can't use the Play Store, or Samsung or Amazon or anyone but Apple. The developer has no choice in this, even though they're the one paying the fee and being subjected to opaque and arbitrary rules.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Yes, I was referring to the smartphone market itself. Within each smartphone operating system, Apple has a monopoly on software sold for their devices. But for Android, I thought it is trivial for end users to avoid the Play store for any software they want? If so, I would not describe that as a monopoly.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > But for Android, I thought it is trivial for end users to avoid the Play store for any software they want? If so, I would not describe that as a monopoly. It's possible but not trivial. In particular, the stores have a network effect where users won't install them if they've never heard of them (remember you have to give your payment info to a store), and developers have no use for a store without users. Google also makes a lot of features dependent on Google Play, which makes it hard for OEMs not to include it with their phone, which might otherwise have allowed the store they did include to reach a critical mass. So Google Play still has >90% market share on Android, even if the alternatives aren't explicitly prohibited.
- ghusto 3y ago
  I should have been explicit with the pluralisation I was referring to (emphasis mine): > passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned _monopolies_

by ghusto 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

> In case it's not clear from the definition, notice the first example's deliberate pluralisation; "largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies". The example is, presumably, referring to a single entity that provided “passenger services” between two destinations, and no other entity provided passenger services between those destinations. But since there could be multiple sets of destinations that single entities provided all passenger services for, then there would be multiple monopolies. Which does not contradict kemayo’s post. There is no reason to use monopoly (in this context) when more accurate vocabulary exists, such as duopoly or oligopoly.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> But since there could be multiple sets of destinations that single entities provided all passenger services for, then there would be multiple monopolies. Which is precisely the point. Take as "destinations" the two parties to any given transaction, i.e. a particular software developer and a particular user. If the user has an iPhone, they can't use the Play Store, or Samsung or Amazon or anyone but Apple. The developer has no choice in this, even though they're the one paying the fee and being subjected to opaque and arbitrary rules.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Yes, I was referring to the smartphone market itself. Within each smartphone operating system, Apple has a monopoly on software sold for their devices. But for Android, I thought it is trivial for end users to avoid the Play store for any software they want? If so, I would not describe that as a monopoly.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > But for Android, I thought it is trivial for end users to avoid the Play store for any software they want? If so, I would not describe that as a monopoly. It's possible but not trivial. In particular, the stores have a network effect where users won't install them if they've never heard of them (remember you have to give your payment info to a store), and developers have no use for a store without users. Google also makes a lot of features dependent on Google Play, which makes it hard for OEMs not to include it with their phone, which might otherwise have allowed the store they did include to reach a critical mass. So Google Play still has >90% market share on Android, even if the alternatives aren't explicitly prohibited.
ghusto 3y ago
I should have been explicit with the pluralisation I was referring to (emphasis mine): > passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned _monopolies_