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 2 hours 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 an hour 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?

	▲	Dylan16807 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking? Breaking? They're being a monopoly by having a huge market share. A majority of browers are directly branded chrome, and the chrome team has strong codebase control over most of the alternatives too. Especially on desktop. It's that simple. > 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? The existence of competition doesn't change whether something is a monopoly. It only disproves 100%, which is why I mentioned 100%. The choices of users don't change whether something is a monopoly.