mo·nop·o·ly
[muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.
4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5.
a company or group that has such control.
But still, your little pictures don't show anything, where is the proof that they are a monopoly?
Microsoft were never put on trial for having a monopoly, they were investigated and convicted for abusing the monopoly power they had. And yes, by every conventional measure, they had monopoly power, which is generally to held to be around the 70% mark for market dominance Get your facts straight.
Were you literate, you’d read the image and see this magical ‘text source’ of yours.
Again, attempting to shift the burden.
Substantiate your arguments when you make them, not days or weeks later, and properly source them, don't just post images. You're the worst offender of one of the things you complain about the most.
Nope. Provided the evidence. Now instead of whining about how it “isn’t evidence”, how about you explain why it isn’t? By going to that link and systematically pointing out what is and is not valid.
Substantiate your arguments when you make them, not days or weeks later…
Yeah, see, common knowledge doesn’t require substantiation. This has been the case with YouTube for many years now.
In a poor format, inconvenient for interrogation, with attitude. Not condusive to good argument, so you're not going to get it. I'm not going to justify your tardiness and passive aggressiveness by accepting that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Now instead of whining about how it “isn’t evidence”
Never happened. Never said that. We've gone over this before, only use quotation marks when you're quoting something. Otherwise you're being disingenuous and in poor form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
By going to that link and systematically pointing out what is and is not valid.
Post a link and I might do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, see, common knowledge doesn’t require substantiation.
Yes it does, that's a laughable assertion as "common knowledge" (defined by who, exactly?) is often proven to be common fallacy. Saying otherwise is the resort of the lazy or the corrupt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This has been the case with YouTube for many years now.
And yet other links (note: links) posted say otherwise. The jury has not settled. Your claims don't get accepted just because you say that everyone knows them. Because that's (i) not true and (ii) shoddy diligence.
In a poor format, inconvenient for interrogation, with attitude. Not condusive to good argument, so you're not going to get it. I'm not going to justify your tardiness and passive aggressiveness by accepting that.
Never happened. Never said that. We've gone over this before, only use quotation marks when you're quoting something. Otherwise you're being disingenuous and in poor form.
Post a link and I might do that.
Yes it does, that's a laughable assertion as "common knowledge" (defined by who, exactly?) is often proven to be common fallacy. Saying otherwise is the resort of the lazy or the corrupt.
And yet other links (note: links) posted say otherwise. The jury has not settled. Your claims don't get accepted just because you say that everyone knows them. Because that's (i) not true and (ii) shoddy diligence.
Nope, no link, no dice.
You and TS are becoming the Hatfields and McCoy's, fighting for generations and can't remember what started it.
He starts it anew every time he posts this arrogant, condescending bs.
I'm fully aware that engaging with him is useless. I should stop.
He's not beyond admitting when he's wrong (yes I've seen it), but at a certain point just admit that you're not going to convince him nor is he going to convince you.
Thanks for posting it, by the way. You really look idiotic at this point.
My definition, no sorry, that was from dictionary.com
But from the Apple dictionary on my Mac
monopoly |m??n?p(?)li|
noun (pl.monopolies)
1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service: the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting.
• a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies. France's electricity monopoly, EDF.
• a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group. electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies.
• [ usu. with negative ] the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love.
2 (Monopoly) trademark a board game in which players engage in simulated property and financial dealings using imitation money. It was invented in the US and the name was coined by Charles Darrow c.1935.
Yet again, this doesn't meet your claim. You claimed Google had a monopoly on streaming video, please provide proof, or quit claiming it.
No, really, keep it up, boyo. I’m sure you’re outraged at how Microsoft was so wrongly tried for their monopoly.
They weren't tried for having a 'monopoly', they were tried for being abusive, and effectively eliminate the competition. One could say that Apple has a monopolistic stranglehold on the tablet market but they're not abusing their position
The image does not prove YouTube has a monopoly over streaming video. 63% of traffic and 40% of users is not a monopoly.
In addition
the stats are USA only
the stats appear not to include a lot of players, where is Vimeo? (claimed 27m unique viewers per month in the US - http://vimeo.com/about/advertisers)
the stats of "number of videos" is a questionable representation. The average Netflix video is likely to be 10 or 20 times longer that the average YouTube video. "Minutes/hours of video" would be a better stat.
the stats also appear to ignore one of the main movers of streaming video, pornography.
he said he had, and I have. You posted a US stat from some random place (no link to the data to back it up), and I will ask it this time, how does having 63% of videos make it a monopoly? And even it they were, how are they abusing their position to force people to upload their videos to YouTube?
Comments
Five minutes of searching and you can’t come up with it yourself?
Well you claimed it, why should we look it up.
But still, your little pictures don't show anything, where is the proof that they are a monopoly?
In your definition.
Thanks for posting it, by the way. You really look idiotic at this point.
Oh so you're redefining monopoly to be 63% now?
You're as shameless as Samsung in your hypocrisy, as well as your double standard of putting the onus on other people to look stuff up.
I note that you've posted an image, not a link to any interrogable data or context.
Typical.
No, really, keep it up, boyo. I’m sure you’re outraged at how Microsoft was so wrongly tried for their monopoly.
Shut up already. Were you literate, you’d read the image and see this magical ‘text source’ of yours.
Microsoft were never put on trial for having a monopoly, they were investigated and convicted for abusing the monopoly power they had. And yes, by every conventional measure, they had monopoly power, which is generally to held to be around the 70% mark for market dominance Get your facts straight.
Were you literate, you’d read the image and see this magical ‘text source’ of yours.
Again, attempting to shift the burden.
Substantiate your arguments when you make them, not days or weeks later, and properly source them, don't just post images. You're the worst offender of one of the things you complain about the most.
Nope. Provided the evidence. Now instead of whining about how it “isn’t evidence”, how about you explain why it isn’t? By going to that link and systematically pointing out what is and is not valid.
Yeah, see, common knowledge doesn’t require substantiation. This has been the case with YouTube for many years now.
Again, already did.
Nope. Provided the evidence.
In a poor format, inconvenient for interrogation, with attitude. Not condusive to good argument, so you're not going to get it. I'm not going to justify your tardiness and passive aggressiveness by accepting that.
Now instead of whining about how it “isn’t evidence”
Never happened. Never said that. We've gone over this before, only use quotation marks when you're quoting something. Otherwise you're being disingenuous and in poor form.
By going to that link and systematically pointing out what is and is not valid.
Post a link and I might do that.
Yeah, see, common knowledge doesn’t require substantiation.
Yes it does, that's a laughable assertion as "common knowledge" (defined by who, exactly?) is often proven to be common fallacy. Saying otherwise is the resort of the lazy or the corrupt.
This has been the case with YouTube for many years now.
And yet other links (note: links) posted say otherwise. The jury has not settled. Your claims don't get accepted just because you say that everyone knows them. Because that's (i) not true and (ii) shoddy diligence.
Again, already did.
Nope, no link, no dice.
You and TS are becoming the Hatfields and McCoy's, fighting for generations and can't remember what started it.
He starts it anew every time he posts this arrogant, condescending bs.
I'm fully aware that engaging with him is useless. I should stop.
He's not beyond admitting when he's wrong (yes I've seen it), but at a certain point just admit that you're not going to convince him nor is he going to convince you.
I'm fully aware that engaging with him is useless. I should stop.
You should; you’re wrong. It’s embarrassing.
My definition, no sorry, that was from dictionary.com
But from the Apple dictionary on my Mac
Yet again, this doesn't meet your claim. You claimed Google had a monopoly on streaming video, please provide proof, or quit claiming it.
They weren't tried for having a 'monopoly', they were tried for being abusive, and effectively eliminate the competition. One could say that Apple has a monopolistic stranglehold on the tablet market but they're not abusing their position
This is the only argument you have, is it?
Actually look at the image.
The image does not prove YouTube has a monopoly over streaming video. 63% of traffic and 40% of users is not a monopoly.
In addition
You should; you’re wrong. It’s embarrassing.
See you say that, but the opposite is actually true. I'm forever torn between thinking you're an idiot or a troll. I think you're probably both.
Sure thing. You looked at the image, right?
he said he had, and I have. You posted a US stat from some random place (no link to the data to back it up), and I will ask it this time, how does having 63% of videos make it a monopoly? And even it they were, how are they abusing their position to force people to upload their videos to YouTube?