> it was done entirely at the expense of the customer and their experience. this is what it means to be a monopoly. Adobe may not be one by the legal definiti

> it was done entirely at the expense of the customer and their experience. this is what it means to be a monopoly. Adobe may not be one by the legal definition, but it certainly is a monopolistic suit of products, as their "customer" does not have a way to switch, regardless of other competing software. I personally think that the current legal idea of a monopoly is too narrow. I say the definition should be focused on the customer's cost of switching - and if it's higher than some reasonable threshold, the provider of said service/product must be considered a monopoly.