• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    You went straight from ‘they don’t have a monopoly’ to ‘they don’t abuse their monopoly’ in literally the next sentence. This topic is bewildering to discuss, because everyone not simply acknowledging ‘yes of course the one store with like ninety percent of sales is a monopoly’ is trying to juggle several conversations they’d rather be having. I often come to regret mentioning Epic or consoles because people pivot into criticism like I offered any form of defense.

    Look: I have an NES homebrew that opens with the Yuzu logo and the words “never give Nintendo money.” I’ve been yelling about Apple’s enforced censorship since 2007. I’ve called for Google to be broken up for at least ten years. You do not need to tell me what an abusive monopoly looks like, in this thread where I am explicitly making the distinction between abusive monopolies and just plain having a monopoly.

    There’s other subthreads saying Valve succeeds “despite capitalism.” People get so fucking weird about this company, because they refuse to believe that a corporation can do normal business and still be fine.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        And yet, plainly capable of abusing their near total dominance of an open platform. Hence the concern about Gabe specifically. They have this power, but choose not to be dicks about it.

        They still have this power. That’s what the word means.

        • thingsiplay@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Valve does not abuse their market leader position. Being a market leader and a monopoly is a total different position.

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Market share is the only thing defining a monopoly.

            Absolute monopolies basically do not exist, except as subcategories of de facto monopolies. Even Apple obviously does not monopolize smartphones.

            What would anti-competitive practices even mean, if there were no competitors?