So then a yes for "Wields a disproportionately large influence over the streaming market" while still technically being a no for "Is a monopoly."
You can't have a monopoly on cereal? The fuck you can't. Making enough cereal to have a national brand requires resources. If you can't buy enough good quality ingredients in bulk, you can't make enough cereal to compete with Cheerios. If you can't buy the machines to make cereal in bulk, you can't compete with Cheerios. If you can't out-spend Cheerios to buy shelf-space long enough to gain and keep markeshare, you can't compete with Cheerios.
... and you should really get less worked up about this sort of thing, and stop treating every disagreement as a personal crusade against your very existence. It can't be good for you.and you damn well know it.
Name one monopoly that has ever existed without anti-competitive business practices. Standard Oil? Ma Bell? Every single monopoly in history has come about because of anti-competitive business practices.Anti-competitive practices and "monopoly" are two different things. .
Or rather your point fell so very hard flat on its face that it might as well have been cardboard. Websites are easy to establish. Their costs scale according to their use so the barrier to entry is low. Media is a resource limited only by creativity. There's no patents really governing media streaming (most use open standards like H.264). It's a much closer comparison than anything else - especially the other listed examples of actual monopolies.Gas, we all know there are generic oat cereals. They exist because the cereal market is fundamentally different than the streaming media market. Among other reasons it's different: grocery stores established themselves before the mass consolidation of megacorporations, people generally acknowledge the importance of food in the economy, oats are a commodity, food manufactuers aren't the only companies that own grocery stores, you can't patent an ingredient list and you certainly can't copyright a recipe. The fact that you think I was literally talking about anti-competitive behavior in the cereal industry shows my point went right over your head.
But that doesn't make an anti-competitive practice a monopoly. It's like saying 4 wheels and a seat make a formula 1 racer. After all, you've never seen the latter without the former, right?Name one monopoly that has ever existed without anti-competitive business practices. Standard Oil? Ma Bell? Every single monopoly in history has come about because of anti-competitive business practices.
AT&T owned 223 of the 234 phone companies. Standard oil owned 90% of the oil refining business (both refineries and pipelines). They both were able to use their positions to prevent competing businesses from growing. Disney buying Hulu isn't even remotely in the same ballpark, though it is a step in that direction. But as I pointed out, competing with them is easy. If there's anything actually hampering new entrants, it is actually something of an oversaturation of the streaming market. People actually think there's too many of them already, and grouse at having to subscribe to more than one or two to get the content they want.Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that monopolies only exist when a single company has successfully eliminated all other competitors. Monopolies exist when one company has undue influence over an entire industry, and things can reach that point before all other companies have been driven completely out of the industry. Standard Oil didn't control 100% of the oil in the US. Other companies were still making money off of oil. There were other phone companies besides the Bell Telephone company. It was important for the government to step in and break those monopolies up before they literally became the only company.
If or when Disney owns Warner, Universal, 20th c Fox, and Columbia, this still won't be a monopoly because anybody can just make a movie with a smartphone these days. And you can stream it all you want!Wow, you really think this is just about streaming. I give up.
The fact that you think I was literally talking about [. . .] the cereal industry shows my point went right over your head.
Your messages are a little all over the place, and you seem really worked up. Maybe take a step back and remember one calming truth: it doesn't matter if people on a niche forum agree with you or not, it changes nothing in the hellscape of our reality.Wow, you really think this is just about streaming. I give up.
So technically not monopolies either then...AT&T owned 223 of the 234 phone companies. Standard oil owned 90% of the oil refining business (both refineries and pipelines).
What if the storyteller (C3PO) is even farther in the future, and that's the only reason that the movies open with those lines?Okay, I can take the joking fan theories that all Disney properties exist in one connected universe, and that somehow Star Wars and High School Musical are connected....
What I can't take is people who think that Star Wars takes place in the future. *facepalm* "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...." I understand that the time travel necessary for singing basketball student to be Luke Skywalker's ancestor is still less complicated than Kingdom Hearts, but I'm gonna insist that the need for that time travel is at least addressed. Star Wars is not about the future of humans from Earth!
For others who didn't get it: https://mentalfloss.com/article/500756/tommy-westphall-theory-unified-tv-universe-explainedIt's all Tommy Westphall's world, and we're just living in our small part of the snow globe.
He's supposed to specialize in protocol, so it's not a bad take. Or, you know, switch "3PO" for "Lucas"...Yes, I'm calling 3PO a bad storyteller; fight me!