if we don't go by dictionaries' definitions, can i reli on you to define everything i need to lookup?
how do u even define monopoly, aside from a couple of examples.
i'm sorry to say, but you, or anyone else on this board, aren't very convincing to me. dictionary.com is a fairly reputable on-line dictionary; i checked mirriam-webster's version, which is about the same. while it might be true that you have storng convictions about the meaning of monopoly, i tend to believe the dictionary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Screw the dictionary. If you want the legal definition of a monopoly go here:
Monopoly - A commercial advantage enjoyed by only one or a select few companies in which only those companies can trade in a certain area. Some monopolies are legal, such as those temporarily created by patents. Others are secretly built by conspiracy between two or more companies and are prohibited by law.
You can find the definition of an illegal monopoly here:
Kecksy makes the key point(delicately) in distinguishing between the the literal and figurative uses of monopoly. In conversation we use it to mean a control of a market that is unfair and potentially illegal. Or something like that. So, like he said, screw the dictionary definition for this instance.
BTW, during the Microsoft antitrust trial, someone from there did make the claim that Apple, too, was a monopoly. It must have been the wrong tactic. Was NEVER brought up again that I saw. It would be like implying that Sony has harmful monopoly via its Betamaxes. Please.
Burger King has a competitive advantage in selling Whoppers. This does not give them a monopoly on the Whopper.
To be used in the common, perjorative sense a monopoly has to apply to a class of items.
FOR EXAMPLE, if Microsoft had a competitive advantage in selling its OS, say because it had 95% of the market and it locked computer makers out of installing other OSes on machines that had its OS installed, this would be a monopoly.
In this case, behavior like locking out competitors might be found to be in violation of antitrust laws.
In fact, it was.
As Apple controls only 100% of the Mac OS, and not even 5% of Everyone's Computer Experience, it is far far away from being a monopoly.
Burger King has a competitive advantage in selling Whoppers. This does not give them a monopoly on the Whopper.
To be used in the common, perjorative sense a monopoly has to apply to a class of items.
FOR EXAMPLE, if Microsoft had a competitive advantage in selling its OS, say because it had 95% of the market and it locked computer makers out of installing other OSes on machines that had its OS installed, this would be a monopoly.
In this case, behavior like locking out competitors might be found to be in violation of antitrust laws.
In fact, it was.
As Apple controls only 100% of the Mac OS, and not even 5% of Everyone's Computer Experience, it is far far away from being a monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
having a large marketshare does not decide whether a company has a monopoly or not. in the legal definition (provided by Kecksy) there was no mention of marketshare. in my econ class my professor made a point of saying that marketshare does not define monopolies. in fact, i'm fairly certain that she said that McDonald's had a monopoly over BigMacs; though, she noted, not by the common definition.
<strong>apple enjoys a commercial advantage in the area of selling its Macintosh Operating Systems.
if this falls out of ur definition, how do u define MS' monopoly?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The MacOS is a brand. Of course Apple enjoys a commercial advantage in the area of selling its own brand.
If this is your definition of a monopoly then we can assume that any company which controls its own brand is a monopoly, meaning all companies are monopolies. This is ludicrous.
Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, but you can't say they have a monopoly on Windows. Windows is a brand and every company has a "monopoly" on its own brand.
As reynard said a literal definition of a monopoly is useless because it accuses all companies of being monopolies.
<strong>Can someone explain this? I'm discussing the issue with someone at another message board and I'm out of ammo. Any links or response !?</strong><hr></blockquote>
... the same reason Microsoft isn't a monopoly ...
... oh, that and they don't have 95% of the market.
<strong>apple enjoys a commercial advantage in the area of selling its Macintosh Operating Systems.
if this falls out of ur definition, how do u define MS' monopoly?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Honda has a monopoly on the Honda Accord?
Nabisco has a monopoly on Nabisco Shredded Wheat?
Coco-cola has a monopoly on Coke?
Levis has a monopoly on levis?
I suppose these don't entirely contradict the one sentence definition of monopoly from dictionary.com. But under your simplification of the definiation, all companies are monopolies. This defeats the purpose of having the term in the first place.
Yeah, and I suppose all stars are actually Suns to their local systems. True. But what's the point?
[snipped two antagonistic sentences <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ]
[quote] having a large marketshare does not decide whether a company has a monopoly or not. in the legal definition (provided by Kecksy) there was no mention of marketshare. in my econ class my professor made a point of saying that marketshare does not define monopolies. in fact, i'm fairly certain that she said that McDonald's had a monopoly over BigMacs; though, she noted, not by the common definition. <hr></blockquote>
Well, looks like we agree then. Good.
Now you've admitted you know the common definition, and you acknowledge all the facts, so since I don't feel like repeating myself, let's consider the matter closed.
a macintosh computer is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem here is that there are two market spaces under discussion. I would agree with Kecksy and say that the Mac OS is not a commodity. An operating system is a commodity, and Apple does not have an operating system monopoly.
However, operating systems are a little different from a traditional market in that an OS essentially encapsulate another market by the mere existence of published APIs. In this respect, Apple does wield considerable power in the Macintosh application market by the fact that it controls both APIs and the hardware.However, I don't think this meets thuh Freak's mark for a monopoly in that Apple does not exert "exclusive" control as long as the OS contains a "reasonable" (a whole other debate) public API. Third parties are always welcome to compete.
Finally, I'll just mention that this distinction was at the heart of the Microsoft case. Along with the question of where does an OS end and an application begin (e.g. the whole "Is MS IE part of the OS?" question).
<strong>Now you've admitted you know the common definition, and you acknowledge all the facts, so since I don't feel like repeating myself, let's consider the matter closed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the common definition isn't correct though. by the common definition, monopolies are oft considered bad or evil. like standard oil and ms with their anti-competetive practices. apple is a monopoly that is not anti-competetive.
Conveinently people only use the term monopoly when they are speaking about the ones with market advantage and anti-competitive practices, so I don't think they are in much danger of being misunderstood.
<strong>Conveinently people only use the term monopoly when they are speaking about the ones with market advantage and anti-competitive practices, so I don't think they are in much danger of being misunderstood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
just because people typically refer to the bad monopolies doesn't mean those are the only monopolies. a monopoly is not a bad thing. there are companies that monopolize certain commodities without being anti-competetive.
Back to the origional topic of the thread. Why isn't Apple a monopoly?
The question is actually wrong. What is at question here is whether Apple has a similar monopoly as Microsoft. So the questions should be, is Apple an illegal monopoly?
As this thread has stated Apple has a vertical monopoly on its products. They make or somehow control the making of the whole widget, from the Mobo, to the processor, to the OS to the mouse and keyboard. This is not wrong, nor is it illegal. Now if they started increasing market share by leaps and bounds and found themselves somehow at 95% of the overall PC market and used that advantage to drive Dell, Gateway and HP out of business, that could be an illegal monopoly. If criminal intent was shown.
For example, Apple owning 95% of the market is not a bad thing by itself. Using that marketshare to force HP to sell only Apple printers and to stop selling consumer desktops or lose compatibility with the MacOS would be using their monopoly in an illegal fashion.
So the answer to the first question, the strawman: Apple is a monopoly of sorts. But they are not an illegal monopoly.
[quote] just because people typically refer to the bad monopolies doesn't mean those are the only monopolies. a monopoly is not a bad thing. there are companies that monopolize certain commodities without being anti-competetive. <hr></blockquote>
just because people typically refer to the bad monopolies doesn't mean those are the only monopolies. a monopoly is not a bad thing. there are companies that monopolize certain commodities without being anti-competetive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have problems with your definitions. One cannot BOTH be a monopoly AND be competitive since to be a monopoly - by definition - one has NO real competition, and without competition, one cannot be competitive.
Can you imagine an Olympics where only one guy shows up for the 100 meter dash and we still call it a competition?
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Monopoly \\Mo*nop"o*ly\\, n.; pl. Monopolies. [L. monopolium,
Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.]
1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity;
The questions to ask are:
Is the monopoly abusing it's power?
Would competition better serve the greater good?
Is any other form of corporate structure available?
Give it up. No reasonable person is going to agree that Apple is a monopoly. No one. Whoever said "this is starting to sound like trolling" is right. I think you are just arguing not to be proven wrong. We're getting into semantics and hair splitting, and GOOD GOD: Looking things up in a dictionary.
I have an illegal monopoly over my body. I have been using it to force boyfriends out of continuing relationships with their girlfriends. I tell the ladies.."If you want me, you have to give everyone else up." And they do it. I will try to curb my anti-competitiveness. Please forgive me.
Comments
<strong>
if we don't go by dictionaries' definitions, can i reli on you to define everything i need to lookup?
how do u even define monopoly, aside from a couple of examples.
i'm sorry to say, but you, or anyone else on this board, aren't very convincing to me. dictionary.com is a fairly reputable on-line dictionary; i checked mirriam-webster's version, which is about the same. while it might be true that you have storng convictions about the meaning of monopoly, i tend to believe the dictionary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Screw the dictionary. If you want the legal definition of a monopoly go here:
<a href="http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-m.htm#M"; target="_blank">http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-m.htm#M</a>;
Monopoly - A commercial advantage enjoyed by only one or a select few companies in which only those companies can trade in a certain area. Some monopolies are legal, such as those temporarily created by patents. Others are secretly built by conspiracy between two or more companies and are prohibited by law.
You can find the definition of an illegal monopoly here:
<a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm</a>;
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
Just because they sell the hardware and the software doesn't mean they're a monopoly. It means they have a vertical business model.
[ 10-22-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
BTW, during the Microsoft antitrust trial, someone from there did make the claim that Apple, too, was a monopoly. It must have been the wrong tactic. Was NEVER brought up again that I saw. It would be like implying that Sony has harmful monopoly via its Betamaxes. Please.
if this falls out of ur definition, how do u define MS' monopoly?
Here is yet another example:
Burger King has a competitive advantage in selling Whoppers. This does not give them a monopoly on the Whopper.
To be used in the common, perjorative sense a monopoly has to apply to a class of items.
FOR EXAMPLE, if Microsoft had a competitive advantage in selling its OS, say because it had 95% of the market and it locked computer makers out of installing other OSes on machines that had its OS installed, this would be a monopoly.
In this case, behavior like locking out competitors might be found to be in violation of antitrust laws.
In fact, it was.
As Apple controls only 100% of the Mac OS, and not even 5% of Everyone's Computer Experience, it is far far away from being a monopoly.
<strong>Freak, this is getting a bit trollish.
Here is yet another example:
Burger King has a competitive advantage in selling Whoppers. This does not give them a monopoly on the Whopper.
To be used in the common, perjorative sense a monopoly has to apply to a class of items.
FOR EXAMPLE, if Microsoft had a competitive advantage in selling its OS, say because it had 95% of the market and it locked computer makers out of installing other OSes on machines that had its OS installed, this would be a monopoly.
In this case, behavior like locking out competitors might be found to be in violation of antitrust laws.
In fact, it was.
As Apple controls only 100% of the Mac OS, and not even 5% of Everyone's Computer Experience, it is far far away from being a monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
having a large marketshare does not decide whether a company has a monopoly or not. in the legal definition (provided by Kecksy) there was no mention of marketshare. in my econ class my professor made a point of saying that marketshare does not define monopolies. in fact, i'm fairly certain that she said that McDonald's had a monopoly over BigMacs; though, she noted, not by the common definition.
<strong>apple enjoys a commercial advantage in the area of selling its Macintosh Operating Systems.
if this falls out of ur definition, how do u define MS' monopoly?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The MacOS is a brand. Of course Apple enjoys a commercial advantage in the area of selling its own brand.
If this is your definition of a monopoly then we can assume that any company which controls its own brand is a monopoly, meaning all companies are monopolies. This is ludicrous.
Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, but you can't say they have a monopoly on Windows. Windows is a brand and every company has a "monopoly" on its own brand.
As reynard said a literal definition of a monopoly is useless because it accuses all companies of being monopolies.
<strong>Can someone explain this? I'm discussing the issue with someone at another message board and I'm out of ammo. Any links or response
... the same reason Microsoft isn't a monopoly ...
... oh, that and they don't have 95% of the market.
<strong>apple enjoys a commercial advantage in the area of selling its Macintosh Operating Systems.
if this falls out of ur definition, how do u define MS' monopoly?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Honda has a monopoly on the Honda Accord?
Nabisco has a monopoly on Nabisco Shredded Wheat?
Coco-cola has a monopoly on Coke?
Levis has a monopoly on levis?
I suppose these don't entirely contradict the one sentence definition of monopoly from dictionary.com. But under your simplification of the definiation, all companies are monopolies. This defeats the purpose of having the term in the first place.
Yeah, and I suppose all stars are actually Suns to their local systems. True. But what's the point?
[snipped two antagonistic sentences <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ]
[ 10-22-2002: Message edited by: dfiler ]</p>
Well, looks like we agree then. Good.
Now you've admitted you know the common definition, and you acknowledge all the facts, so since I don't feel like repeating myself, let's consider the matter closed.
<strong>
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=commodity"; target="_blank">commodity</a>: Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage.
a macintosh computer is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem here is that there are two market spaces under discussion. I would agree with Kecksy and say that the Mac OS is not a commodity. An operating system is a commodity, and Apple does not have an operating system monopoly.
However, operating systems are a little different from a traditional market in that an OS essentially encapsulate another market by the mere existence of published APIs. In this respect, Apple does wield considerable power in the Macintosh application market by the fact that it controls both APIs and the hardware.However, I don't think this meets thuh Freak's mark for a monopoly in that Apple does not exert "exclusive" control as long as the OS contains a "reasonable" (a whole other debate) public API. Third parties are always welcome to compete.
Finally, I'll just mention that this distinction was at the heart of the Microsoft case. Along with the question of where does an OS end and an application begin (e.g. the whole "Is MS IE part of the OS?" question).
[ 10-22-2002: Message edited by: Simple Ranger ]</p>
<strong>Now you've admitted you know the common definition, and you acknowledge all the facts, so since I don't feel like repeating myself, let's consider the matter closed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the common definition isn't correct though. by the common definition, monopolies are oft considered bad or evil. like standard oil and ms with their anti-competetive practices. apple is a monopoly that is not anti-competetive.
<strong>Conveinently people only use the term monopoly when they are speaking about the ones with market advantage and anti-competitive practices, so I don't think they are in much danger of being misunderstood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
just because people typically refer to the bad monopolies doesn't mean those are the only monopolies. a monopoly is not a bad thing. there are companies that monopolize certain commodities without being anti-competetive.
The question is actually wrong. What is at question here is whether Apple has a similar monopoly as Microsoft. So the questions should be, is Apple an illegal monopoly?
As this thread has stated Apple has a vertical monopoly on its products. They make or somehow control the making of the whole widget, from the Mobo, to the processor, to the OS to the mouse and keyboard. This is not wrong, nor is it illegal. Now if they started increasing market share by leaps and bounds and found themselves somehow at 95% of the overall PC market and used that advantage to drive Dell, Gateway and HP out of business, that could be an illegal monopoly. If criminal intent was shown.
For example, Apple owning 95% of the market is not a bad thing by itself. Using that marketshare to force HP to sell only Apple printers and to stop selling consumer desktops or lose compatibility with the MacOS would be using their monopoly in an illegal fashion.
So the answer to the first question, the strawman: Apple is a monopoly of sorts. But they are not an illegal monopoly.
Yes...and?
<strong>
just because people typically refer to the bad monopolies doesn't mean those are the only monopolies. a monopoly is not a bad thing. there are companies that monopolize certain commodities without being anti-competetive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have problems with your definitions. One cannot BOTH be a monopoly AND be competitive since to be a monopoly - by definition - one has NO real competition, and without competition, one cannot be competitive.
Can you imagine an Olympics where only one guy shows up for the 100 meter dash and we still call it a competition?
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Monopoly \\Mo*nop"o*ly\\, n.; pl. Monopolies. [L. monopolium,
Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.]
1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity;
The questions to ask are:
Is the monopoly abusing it's power?
Would competition better serve the greater good?
Is any other form of corporate structure available?
Who get's to decide?
Have a nice day.
Give it up. No reasonable person is going to agree that Apple is a monopoly. No one. Whoever said "this is starting to sound like trolling" is right. I think you are just arguing not to be proven wrong. We're getting into semantics and hair splitting, and GOOD GOD: Looking things up in a dictionary.
Game over.
I am going to be sued aren't I?