5 ms·

Also, see Android and iOS which have a monopoly on the mobile OS market

by pcthrowaway 2mo ago

falcor84 2mo ago
Sorry about the nitpicking, but s/monopoly/duopoly/
- chrisweekly 2mo ago
  not nitpicking; huge difference between 0 and 1 competitor
  - jmathai 2mo ago
    Huge difference while both are competing. But it’s a huge risk in a market with such high cost of entering. If either divests then it rapidly degrades.
- utopiah 2mo ago
  I don't think that's the economical definition of monopoly. It's not about 1 single actor owning the market but rather about unilateral change. Obviously a single actor owning 99.99% will be able to shape the market ... but also one owning a lot less, e.g. 30% if even if they don't collude with another actor owning e.g. 21%.
  - monknomo 2mo ago
    what you are describing sounds like an oligopoly not a monopoly. A company cannot realize monopolistic benefits without > 50% control of a market. That's not to say there aren't benefits to a large market share, but they are different and we have different terms for them.
    - odo1242 2mo ago
      US law sets the breakpoint for when a company is considered a monopoly at 30% of a market. It's never actually enforced, of course, but may be worth noting.
      - monknomo 1mo ago
        [what does the ftc say about it?](https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...) Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.
    - blauditore 2mo ago
      >A company cannot realize monopolistic benefits without > 50% control of a market. I don't think that's true at all. Why 50% specifically? This is not about political votes or anything like that. It's about being the largest player by a margin, usually.

Also, see Android and iOS which have a monopoly on the mobile OS market

falcor84 2mo ago

Sorry about the nitpicking, but s/monopoly/duopoly/

chrisweekly 2mo ago
not nitpicking; huge difference between 0 and 1 competitor
- jmathai 2mo ago
  Huge difference while both are competing. But it’s a huge risk in a market with such high cost of entering. If either divests then it rapidly degrades.
utopiah 2mo ago
I don't think that's the economical definition of monopoly. It's not about 1 single actor owning the market but rather about unilateral change. Obviously a single actor owning 99.99% will be able to shape the market ... but also one owning a lot less, e.g. 30% if even if they don't collude with another actor owning e.g. 21%.
- monknomo 2mo ago
  what you are describing sounds like an oligopoly not a monopoly. A company cannot realize monopolistic benefits without > 50% control of a market. That's not to say there aren't benefits to a large market share, but they are different and we have different terms for them.
  - odo1242 2mo ago
    US law sets the breakpoint for when a company is considered a monopoly at 30% of a market. It's never actually enforced, of course, but may be worth noting.
    - monknomo 1mo ago
      [what does the ftc say about it?](https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...) Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.
  - blauditore 2mo ago
    >A company cannot realize monopolistic benefits without > 50% control of a market. I don't think that's true at all. Why 50% specifically? This is not about political votes or anything like that. It's about being the largest player by a margin, usually.