[markdown]

There may or may not be a problem, but it's still a monopoly.

One way it could be a problem is that it makes it extremely difficult for new entrants to appear. If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?

[ucaetano]

> If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?

Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers.

Cola is just a flavor of soda, which is just a type of drink, and can be easily interchangeable with an enormous number of drinks: water, juices, teas, etc.

As long as Coke's actions are not stopping competition in that larger market with the result of harming consumers, why should anyone care?

[Vinnl]

> Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers.

Is that not exactly what that example is about? I, as a consumer, will not be able to experience their super-cola.

[ucaetano]

Again, who cares? Consumer protection isn't about letting you taste some weird cola. It is about price.

Read the Supreme Court's definition.

[Vinnl]

But even then: if coca cola can prevent competitors from emerging, that removes downwards price pressure for them, so prices rise?

[ucaetano]

It isn't if the can, it is if they do.

And it doesn't seem like they do, there is plenty of competition in the non-alcoholic drink space.

[smt88]

> As long as Coke's actions are not stopping competition in that larger market with the result of harming consumers, why should anyone care?

This makes sense as a theory, but in practice, monopolies never exist without abuse/harm. It's likely the only way to sell a single brand to wildly varying customers with different tastes.

[ucaetano]

But that isn't a monopoly.

Imagine Coca-Cola creates a new flavor, with a taste so unique that nobody else is able to replicate it.

Is that a monopoly? Is Coca-Cola abusing its power?

No, and no.

[smt88]

As others have pointed out, you just seem to be using a different definition than the rest of us are.

A single, unreplicated product is never considered a monopoly. A monopoly implies that customers don't have an alternative.

[ucaetano]

> As others have pointed out, you just seem to be using a different definition than the rest of us are.

The Supreme Court has defined market power as "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market,"(8) and monopoly power as "the power to control prices or exclude competition."

You can use whatever definition you want, doesn't make it right or useful. HN readers talking about economics is largely like economists talking about computer science.

[dageshi]

Google has a single unique flavour of search engine, it's very popular, it's not the only one but it's the one people prefer...

How is it any different?

[treis]

Google used it's search engine dominance to expand into analytics, advertising, e-mail, maps, mobile apps, browser, and probably more things I can't think of off the top of my head. Take maps for example. They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API. That's classic abusive monopolistic behavior.

Or look at the browser. Adblockers have been the number 1 extension since browser extensions were a thing. It doesn't take a genius to see why they aren't built into Chrome/FF. It's another classic abuse of a monopoly. They used search to bully their way into being the dominant browser and they use that dominance to protect their ad business.

[smt88]

Google abuses its power, similar to what a monopoly can/does do, without strictly being a monopoly.

That's part of what the original article is discussing.