Why do you keep talking about who installs the app? That has nothing to do with whether something is a monopoly, which is primarily about market share.

▲

vel0city an hour ago | parent [-]

If a user is openly going out of their way to go and install a competitor's product despite a perfectly serviceable version coming by default, how can the the one being sought out be seen as a monopoly? The competition came pre-installed!

How did the user manage to install Chrome on Windows if Chrome is a monopoly, the only serviceable browser around? They copy the source code from a magazine or something? Get a floppy disk in the mail?

▲

Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent [-]

Whatever your definition of monopoly is, it's wrong. The threshold is not 100% market share. If that was the threshold no monopoly has ever existed.

	▲	vel0city 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Whatever your definition of monopoly is, it's wrong Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking? > The threshold is not 100% market share. I never once said so I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable competitors out there, in fact one has to use a functional and fully featured competitors product to go and install Chrome on most platforms out there. How can one claim Chrome is a monoply when there are tons of competitors out there which work just fine, and for most users their computers came with the competitors products? Please, do enlighten me, how is Chrome a monopoly?