3 ms·
Vendor lock-in does count as monopolistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
by learnstats2 12y ago
Vendor lock-in does count as monopolistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
- jonhohle 12y agomay result in antitrust action against a monopoly. You need to have a monopoly first.
- mynameisvlad 12y agoNot really, even the Wikipedia article you sourced doesn't see it that way. > Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly. It's anticompetitive behaviour that suddenly becomes relevant if you're a monopoly.
- k-mcgrady 12y agoMonopolistic behaviour != has a monopoly.
- Touche 12y agoThey have a monopoly on the sale of iPhone apps, no?
- s73v3r 12y agoDoesn't count. Microsoft has a monopoly on the sale of games sold through Xbox Live.
- monocasa 12y agoAnd having a monopoly isn't illegal. Monopolistic behavior is.
- geoelectric 12y agoWell, it's the combination that's illegal. Anti-competitive behavior as a non-monopoly is generally fine (and expected). As your market influence grows, it becomes riskier.
- yellowapple 12y agoOn top of this, there's such a thing as a "vertical monopoly" (which vendor lock-in facilitates). The myriad of comments about how Apple "isn't really a monopoly" assume that horizontal monopolies are the only "real" monopolies, but vertical ones are just as dangerous and just as harmful in just as many situations.