










Comments     Threshold


RE: Anti-trust case?
By Motoman on 10/30/2009 1:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
Economics 101 people. You can find many definitions for a monopoly's a good one:

A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.

There is no barrier to entry in the .mp3 market. There is no way that a single .mp3 vendor can operate without competition. There is no possible way that a vendor can control the volume of the .mp3s that get sold...

Ergo, there is no possible way, ever, that any .mp3 vendor could ever even dream of having a monopoly in the .mp3 market. Anyone who thinks they can provide an argument of how a monopoly in the .mp3 market could happen, please post it.

RE: Anti-trust case?
By sprockkets on 10/30/2009 3:27:42 PM , Rating: 1
Hey motoman, it seems that your clear logical arguments are not welcomed here on a thread about Apple not being a monopoly.

I guess people here think that because Apple has around 75% of the market that they like are stopping people from making their own stores or own music players like the Zune HD, which clearly is a copycat iTouch.


RE: Anti-trust case?
By Motoman on 10/30/2009 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 3

You are quite right. A clear logical arguement is most certainly not welcome here.


People do think that. But they are wrong. 75% of a commodity market says nothing about whether or not you have a monopoly, nor whether or not one is possible. Apple is not, and can not, stop people from making their own .mp3 stores. Apple is not, and can no, stop people from making their own music players like the Zune HD. Whether or not it's a copycat of something else is not germain to the issue at hand.


No. When an indisputable fact is presented that happens to be unpopular, it will remain to be unpopular and people will "choose" to discount it...and the person who brought it up. However...the indisputable fact stands. Popular or not.

RE: Anti-trust case?
By cerx on 10/30/2009 3:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, include it with Windows. Just like IE. And Media Player. Both of which were found to be monopolistic by the EU (right?).

But seriously, your logic doesn't quite fit. Apple doesn't have a monopoly, because Amazon and Napster and everywhere else you can get music, but that's different from saying it's not possible. Especially after posting a definition of a monopoly, which explains how it is possible.

RE: Anti-trust case?
By Motoman on 10/30/2009 3:55:30 PM , Rating: 3
You fail at reading comprehension.

The definition clearly describes what factors must exist to enable a monopoly. Those factors don't exist in the .mp3 market.

You people keep confusing popularity with monopoly. It wouldn't matter what the % of the .mp3-buying consumer base used iTunes - whether it was 10% or 99%. It's plain as day that there can never be a monopoly in that market.

People want to be able to declare iTunes a monopoly because it's popular. Popularity makes not a monopoly. So my post gets rated down, because the fact of what is an isn't a monopoly is inconvenient in this case.

RE: Anti-trust case?
By gcouriel on 10/30/2009 6:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing how we are able to resolve all legal arguments on this forum. odds are, your definition of "monopoly" is not the true and correct definition as interpreted through the courts. that may be your interpretation, but let the sides battle it out in court to see if that is correct. if it were so easy to resolve things, then court battles would be unnecessary. however, considering that Anti-trust and monopoly law is such a large field, i hardly think your ability to resolve it in a post is anywhere near correct.

RE: Anti-trust case?
By Motoman on 10/30/2009 8:07:45 PM , Rating: 2

I didn't make that up.

While in general you have a good point, what is or is not a monopoly is actually a very cut-and-dried issue. Anyone who has taken economics in high school or college can easily make this determination.

But by all means, ask someone else. An economics professor, or a lawyer. Many, many things come through here that are several shades of grey. This isn't one of them.

RE: Anti-trust case?




But then again, I didn't think Microsoft did, either.

