The Disney Thread: For Everything Concerning the House of Mouse

Reactions
2,381 680 24
So then a yes for "Wields a disproportionately large influence over the streaming market" while still technically being a no for "Is a monopoly."

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,011 1,473 27
Anti-competitive practices and "monopoly" are two different things. I'm still right that it's not a monopoly. If anyone's moving goalposts, it's those saying "well yes LEGALLY it's not a monopoly but [everything I don't like should be illegal]."

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 I could go on for quite a while, really... that was just 5 minutes on google. General Mills has LOTS of competition in the ringed oat cereal department. Furthermore, you are again misinterpreting what it means to have a "monopoly." I don't have to have a multinational presence with equal shelf space to be considered competing. That's an unrealistic minimum threshold for defining a monopoly. If a competing product can make a profit while being sold and growing, then obviously there is not a monopoly in play. There are still choices for the consumer. Opinions on those choices may vary, but they ARE there, and are perfectly viable.

and you damn well know it.
... 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.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
2,572 398 5
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.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
2,572 398 5
Anti-competitive practices and "monopoly" are two different things. .
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.

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.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,011 1,473 27
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.
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.

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.
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?

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.
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.

Really, we just witnessed the fall of the netflix "monopoly" and nobody's actually happy about it.
 
Reactions
786 321 13
Wow, you really think this is just about streaming. I give up.
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!
 
Reactions
1,248 255 6
The fact that you think I was literally talking about [. . .] the cereal industry shows my point went right over your head.
Wow, you really think this is just about streaming. I give up.
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.


... maybe it's not that calming.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
2,572 398 5
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!
 
Reactions
468 156 1
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!
What if the storyteller (C3PO) is even farther in the future, and that's the only reason that the movies open with those lines?
 
Reactions
655 87 11
What if the storyteller (C3PO) is even farther in the future, and that's the only reason that the movies open with those lines?
But why is he in another, far far away, galaxy?

Nvm, he probably just followed Artoo...
 
Reactions
1,416 373 3
Yes, I'm calling 3PO a bad storyteller; fight me!
He's supposed to specialize in protocol, so it's not a bad take. Or, you know, switch "3PO" for "Lucas"...

(For the record, using @Hailey Knight 's GOT post about "plotters" and "pantsers", I think Lucas is a "plotter", thus why we get so much awkward dialogue and continuity issues.)
 
Reactions
1,416 373 3
We are eagerly awaiting this in the Z household. We're waiting to go back to Disneyland once this and Galaxy's Edge are open.
 
Top