The examples that you highlighted in your links are Google Chrome, Facebook, Grubhub, Amazon, Apple phones, Google search, and Yelp. Out of these, FB is the only one that seems like it deserves to be called a monopoly: Chrome competes with Firefox (among others), Grubhub competes with Caviar (among others), Amazon competes with google searching “buy [product]” and the gazillion other results that show up, Apple phones compete with Android, Google search competes with Bing and DuckDuckGo, and Yelp competes with Google reviews as well as other review sites.
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a “monopolist” is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm’s market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages.
I basically disagree with the idea that the US FTC gets to decide what the word ‘monopoly’ means. I also think that having a high market share doesn’t mean you face competition—indeed, it can mean that you’re winning the competition.
Re: Apple, it may have a monopoly on iOS app distribution, but when people are considering what phones to buy, they get to choose between iPhones and iOS apps and Androids with Android apps. Admittedly, there’s some friction in changing from one to the other.
The examples that you highlighted in your links are Google Chrome, Facebook, Grubhub, Amazon, Apple phones, Google search, and Yelp. Out of these, FB is the only one that seems like it deserves to be called a monopoly: Chrome competes with Firefox (among others), Grubhub competes with Caviar (among others), Amazon competes with google searching “buy [product]” and the gazillion other results that show up, Apple phones compete with Android, Google search competes with Bing and DuckDuckGo, and Yelp competes with Google reviews as well as other review sites.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
Grubhub used to be over 50% but is now behind Doordash, so maybe doesn’t qualify.
Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution (aside from rooted phones) and is using it to extract rents, which is what the link is about.
Firefox has 4% market share compared to Chrome’s 65%.
Amazon has 40-50% of the ecommerce market depending on which stats you trust.
Google Search has 85%+ market share.
I basically disagree with the idea that the US FTC gets to decide what the word ‘monopoly’ means. I also think that having a high market share doesn’t mean you face competition—indeed, it can mean that you’re winning the competition.
Re: Apple, it may have a monopoly on iOS app distribution, but when people are considering what phones to buy, they get to choose between iPhones and iOS apps and Androids with Android apps. Admittedly, there’s some friction in changing from one to the other.