The only thing they used to get there is the advanced technique of providing a good service, though is still call them a monopoly. They hold a lot of market power and could probably screw over the desktop gaming industry in some pretty significant ways in the short term if they wanted to.
monopoly is when new competitors are prevented from being formed or from being competitive.
like google has a monopoly on android, because without their proprietary services taking over full control the phone, manufacturers are not allowed to install the play store, and without play store, users won’t have access to lots of apps they need. this is including government and banking apps, some of which don’t have a standalone webapp.
together with apple, they form a duopoly, because these apps everybody expects to have access to are not available on other mobile operating systems. for one because the apps are made with an incompatible technology, but also because these platforms are working hard to prevent functional compatibility layers being built for other operating systems, e.g. with play integrity verification or the pairip tool.
these are monopolies and a duopoly because they actively prevent competitors from forming. is steam doing something along those lines?
The only thing they used to get there is the advanced technique of providing a good service
I think we already have the answer. steam does not do anticompetitive practices.
Hmm, that’s an interesting question. I don’t think splitting up steam makes sense, since they still provide a good service for everyone.
Maybe change the steam license (and everyone else’s) such that users are closer to actually owning copies of the games. Give the consumers some guarantees that go beyond good track record. As it stands, I think Steam would be able to charge you money per download of a game or require a subscription fee for you to be able to access your library or some shit like that, and most consumers would be effectively forced to pay up.
I don’t know though, perhaps it would be smarter to leave them alone and punish them only if they abuse their monopoly power, because leaving them alone has thus far resulted in a pretty healthy and thriving market.
I just want go point out in the EU there is a distinction between a natural monopoly and an artificial one. A natural one like Steam isn’t related the same way
This argument always brings out the armchair lawyer in folks, but they miss the point entirely. It’s not about what’s legal (especially when the notion of “legal” has been shaped by years and years of lobbying by big corporates), it’s about what’s good for consumers. And an 85% market share is a huge risk to consumers. It’s as plain as day.
can you tell what makes steam a monopoly?
Their overwhelmingly large market share.
The only thing they used to get there is the advanced technique of providing a good service, though is still call them a monopoly. They hold a lot of market power and could probably screw over the desktop gaming industry in some pretty significant ways in the short term if they wanted to.
that’s not a monopoly.
monopoly is when new competitors are prevented from being formed or from being competitive.
like google has a monopoly on android, because without their proprietary services taking over full control the phone, manufacturers are not allowed to install the play store, and without play store, users won’t have access to lots of apps they need. this is including government and banking apps, some of which don’t have a standalone webapp.
together with apple, they form a duopoly, because these apps everybody expects to have access to are not available on other mobile operating systems. for one because the apps are made with an incompatible technology, but also because these platforms are working hard to prevent functional compatibility layers being built for other operating systems, e.g. with play integrity verification or the pairip tool.
these are monopolies and a duopoly because they actively prevent competitors from forming. is steam doing something along those lines?
I think we already have the answer. steam does not do anticompetitive practices.
I think you should do a little bit of research on this. Even just a tiny little bit. Literally the smallest non-zero amount will do.
if you could, what would you do about it? split up steam into 2 steams? take peoples game libraries and separate it in 2 halves like a divorce?
Hmm, that’s an interesting question. I don’t think splitting up steam makes sense, since they still provide a good service for everyone.
Maybe change the steam license (and everyone else’s) such that users are closer to actually owning copies of the games. Give the consumers some guarantees that go beyond good track record. As it stands, I think Steam would be able to charge you money per download of a game or require a subscription fee for you to be able to access your library or some shit like that, and most consumers would be effectively forced to pay up.
I don’t know though, perhaps it would be smarter to leave them alone and punish them only if they abuse their monopoly power, because leaving them alone has thus far resulted in a pretty healthy and thriving market.
I just want go point out in the EU there is a distinction between a natural monopoly and an artificial one. A natural one like Steam isn’t related the same way
This argument always brings out the armchair lawyer in folks, but they miss the point entirely. It’s not about what’s legal (especially when the notion of “legal” has been shaped by years and years of lobbying by big corporates), it’s about what’s good for consumers. And an 85% market share is a huge risk to consumers. It’s as plain as day.