By your definition, lets imagine a world where Amazon had 100% of the market and there were no other competitors, even if it happened naturally, without malicious intent, they wouldn’t be a monopoly? Come on.
I dont see ‘has to act a specific way’ in any definitions of monopoly. A monopoly isnt about being evil, or ‘actions taken to make such an outsized market power’ even if thats often part of the result, but just describes their position in the field.
This isn’t about how a company got there, it’s about where they currently are. Steam may not have crushed competitors aggressively like Disney or Nintendo, but its market dominance and control over PC game distribution still fits the textbook definition of a monopoly.
Steam has ~79.5% of the PC gaming market, I’m one of their customers and love their service, but that doesnt change that “monopoly”fits them.
Yea, it’s pretty rough for tattorack, but that’s what happens when you ignore definitions and argue in bad faith. They ignore all contrary evidence and definitions, and insit their made up definition is accurate.
/Shrug, some people just aren’t open to discussion .
i mean, i provided definition after definition, link after link, and your response was ‘nuh uh’,
I’m going to steal a page out of your book and say “hey look, a person who doesn’t understand what bad faith means.” since i’ve been here, providing clean, honest discussion, while you just deny and move the goal posts.
That’s not my definition. That’s just the definition. And you’re using a corporation that is actively monopolising the logistics market, even so far as breaking the law to kill any competition, as an example. Nicely done.
Thanks, that was done intentionally, to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I assume we both agree that Amazon is an effective monopoly (though i have had people fight me on that too!)
You say its not your definition, but i linked three different definitions which didn’t use that language. in fact, in all my searching, not a SINGLE definition includes a discussion on how they got there, but on the **CURRENT **state of the market.
This is why I say Steam has an effective monopoly.
So yes, it seems like you’re using your personal definition, but it contradicts the actual, widely accepted definitions.
If you want to call me out and say “you initially said it WAS a monopoly, but its only an EFFECTIVE monopoly”, ill take that egg on my face, its earned and i should be more careful with my words.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
By your definition, lets imagine a world where Amazon had 100% of the market and there were no other competitors, even if it happened naturally, without malicious intent, they wouldn’t be a monopoly? Come on.
I dont see ‘has to act a specific way’ in any definitions of monopoly. A monopoly isnt about being evil, or ‘actions taken to make such an outsized market power’ even if thats often part of the result, but just describes their position in the field.
This isn’t about how a company got there, it’s about where they currently are. Steam may not have crushed competitors aggressively like Disney or Nintendo, but its market dominance and control over PC game distribution still fits the textbook definition of a monopoly.
Steam has ~79.5% of the PC gaming market, I’m one of their customers and love their service, but that doesnt change that “monopoly”fits them.
Damn never seen a sober man so confidently wrong on something so straight forward.
Yea, it’s pretty rough for tattorack, but that’s what happens when you ignore definitions and argue in bad faith. They ignore all contrary evidence and definitions, and insit their made up definition is accurate.
/Shrug, some people just aren’t open to discussion .
Im not the ones ignoring definitions, and calling Valve a monoply is bad faith in the first place.
i mean, i provided definition after definition, link after link, and your response was ‘nuh uh’,
I’m going to steal a page out of your book and say “hey look, a person who doesn’t understand what bad faith means.” since i’ve been here, providing clean, honest discussion, while you just deny and move the goal posts.
So… if the shoe fits…
That’s not my definition. That’s just the definition. And you’re using a corporation that is actively monopolising the logistics market, even so far as breaking the law to kill any competition, as an example. Nicely done.
Thanks, that was done intentionally, to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I assume we both agree that Amazon is an effective monopoly (though i have had people fight me on that too!)
You say its not your definition, but i linked three different definitions which didn’t use that language. in fact, in all my searching, not a SINGLE definition includes a discussion on how they got there, but on the **CURRENT **state of the market.
Here’s another source:
This is why I say Steam has an effective monopoly.
So yes, it seems like you’re using your personal definition, but it contradicts the actual, widely accepted definitions.
If you want to call me out and say “you initially said it WAS a monopoly, but its only an EFFECTIVE monopoly”, ill take that egg on my face, its earned and i should be more careful with my words.