|
|
|
|
|
|
by root_axis
2542 days ago
|
|
|
> All you need to do to hurt competition is set your monopoly-backed prices too low for other competitors to match and if you lack any competition, you're not stifling it. YouTube has stayed the same price since it was created, long before it became a monopoly. > Right, but that means "I am innocent" doesn't constitute an ironclad defense. Which is the only point I'm trying to make. Obviously. My point is that you haven't shown any examples of YouTube abusing its monopoly to stifle competition, thus the argument that they are in danger of violating anti-trust laws does not seem to be correct. We both agree that YouTube has the largest market share, but can you explain to me why you believe YouTube's market share is the result of anti-competitive practices and not a result of a superior product? |
|
|