Technically, you're right. I feel like there needs to be new terms to describe though the staleness of the industry. "Oligopoly" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

▲

thfuran 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Monopoly is that word. "Pure Monopoly" is the term for the platonic ideal that people like to insist companies don't live up to and so aren't at all monopolistic.

▲

raw_anon_1111 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How many competitors do you need? Apple, Disney, Netflix, Comcast, and Paramount are five major competitors.

If you as a hypothetical video content creator want to get your content distributed to a wide audience, you have five companies to go to, you can publish it to any of the video on demand services, try to monetize it through ads on YouTube, etc.

We aren’t in the 30s anymore where the only way you could see content was by going to the movie theater.

Before HBO Max was a thing, they were already selling distribution rights of content to Netflix. No one said that was a monopoly.

▲

mihaic 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> How many competitors do you need? Apple, Disney, Netflix, Comcast, and Paramount are five major competitors.

I actually already agree that the number is not the problem. I can't articulate better, but somehow these don't actually feel like "competitors" in the classical market sense, but rather as stars orbiting the same center, as they're all moving in the same direction, and from time to time merging with one another.

	▲	purpleflame1257 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That was more or less the case from the advent of TV onwards, though.