Also, even if it was 95%, there are clearly competitors with momentum, and you could probably argue that the tablet market isn't really distinct from the smartphone market. But really, it seems like it's way less than 95%. No monopoly.
> But really, it seems like it's way less than 95%. No monopoly.
Although there are no hard and fast rules, to be considered a Monopoly in the UK, for example, you only need to have a minimum 25% market share.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
That seems like a strange definition. I guess both Apple and Google have monopolies in the tablet market, then, by the UK definition. Although that obviously seems contradictory.
I'm going by the typical colloquial definition (which might be closer to the real definition outside the UK), that a monopoly is when there's basically just one option and that market dominance can be used to harm competitors and consumers.
25% market share isn't 'the definition' of a monopoly in the UK, as far as I'm aware (IANAL or in any way an expert in this).
It's one of the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for the OFT to refer a merger to the Competition Commission for investigation under the Enterprise Act[1], if the result would have greater than 25% market share. The other main conditions being that it believes the result would be "a lessening of competition", that it's an important market, etc. That doesn't suddenly make every company with >25% market share a monopoly.
The nearest I can find for the definition of a monopoly, for the purposes of investigating a company on its own (rather than a merger) is "a dominant position in a market"[2], the wording imported from Article 102 TFEU[3].
Comments
95% market share? Where are you getting that from?
This says 65%: http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/14/ipad-market-share-all-time-hig...
This says 52%: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/10/02/android-co...
Try again?
Also, even if it was 95%, there are clearly competitors with momentum, and you could probably argue that the tablet market isn't really distinct from the smartphone market. But really, it seems like it's way less than 95%. No monopoly.
> But really, it seems like it's way less than 95%. No monopoly.
Although there are no hard and fast rules, to be considered a Monopoly in the UK, for example, you only need to have a minimum 25% market share. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
That seems like a strange definition. I guess both Apple and Google have monopolies in the tablet market, then, by the UK definition. Although that obviously seems contradictory.
I'm going by the typical colloquial definition (which might be closer to the real definition outside the UK), that a monopoly is when there's basically just one option and that market dominance can be used to harm competitors and consumers.
25% market share isn't 'the definition' of a monopoly in the UK, as far as I'm aware (IANAL or in any way an expert in this).
It's one of the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for the OFT to refer a merger to the Competition Commission for investigation under the Enterprise Act[1], if the result would have greater than 25% market share. The other main conditions being that it believes the result would be "a lessening of competition", that it's an important market, etc. That doesn't suddenly make every company with >25% market share a monopoly.
The nearest I can find for the definition of a monopoly, for the purposes of investigating a company on its own (rather than a merger) is "a dominant position in a market"[2], the wording imported from Article 102 TFEU[3].
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/40
[2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_102_of_the_Treaty_on_th...