Strazdas said:
MonsterCrit said:
*Sigh* You really don';t quiote grasp the meaning of monopoly. Now your example would only be a monopoly if the first diner whas actively preventing other diners from serving steak. If they aren't well again.. it's simply that they are catering to my desire for steak. That's not monopoly.. that's customer satisfaction.
if other diners are not serving steak
for any reason the only one that does has a monopoly on steak. it may not be a monopoly caused by them interfering in other business, but its a monopoly nonetheless.
You still aren't understanding. The interfering part is the difference. Intent. It's like the difference between Murder, Homocide, and Manslaughter. Small difference but the key difference is the intent. See if there is only one business serving steak and there is nothing preventing others from serving steak then it is not a true monopoly. If I as a diner owner say I shall only server vegan meals then that is my choice to not supply what is a very obvious demand. If a book store owner chooses not to sell Playboy and adult magazine...unlike his competitor, that's choice, not a monopoly.
Nope. A Monopoly is where you have a single supplier of a good or service in a given market that actively tries to keep competing suppliers out of the market-space. This usually requires some collusion at the government level. Or you can have an Oligopoly where a group of dominant but still competing players in a market collude to keep new suppliers out of the market. You know like how the cable industry is run in the US. Free Market which is what the digital software market actually is; is where one can enter the market freely as a supplier and where the consumer has the right to choose.
False. I already described a monopoly for you. what you describe is an absolute monopoly that was achieved via removal of competition. this is a small subsector of all monopolies. Its like saying Honda is a car therefore only Hondas are cars.
Your definition is incorrect. Being the sole supplier of a good or service is not enough to be a monopoly. A monopoly comes where you also have the ability to control the supply I.e Prevent others from supplying the same or competing goods. As said.. go talk to an economics professor or someone who's got a BS.c or evven a FIrst Degree in business Administration.
Your idea that a government is required for a monopoly is laughable. ever heard of a term "natural monopoly"?
My words were that it usually requires Government Collusion. And yes it sorta does. Anything you make and sell... can be copied and sold by someone else. WHat prevents someone from slapping the Nike Logo on their own line of shoes and selling them as Nike? Think about that. Whether intentionally or unintentionally governments do play a part in monopolies, if only because it is the government that sets the laws that protect Intellectual Property. More directly a government can award sole rights of distributorship of goods and service. thusly creating serious barriers.
Natural Monopolies are exceptionally rare and are usually very fleeting. Any product can be duplicated. Even people.
Besides I've already proven that Steam itself is not a monopoly. By any definition. They are simply dominant by means of being the preferred choice. When a better choice becomes available that will change. If 70% of the market chooses Pepsi over Coke does Pepsi have a Monopoly ... nope...Nothing stops anyone from selling COke and nothing stops people from buying Coke... the consumer by their own internal assessment of Direct COst, COnvenience, Value and Opportunity Loss have decided that Pepsi fullfils their needs better than Coke. Nothing stops a dev from not releasing on Steam, it's just that releasing on Steam by most calculations better serves the Developer's interests.
Sorta like how there's nothing stopping you from doing a cross country race barefooted. But it's likely in your best interest to wear some shoes.
