> Google has 90% of the search market.
I can use Bing. I can use DuckDuckGo. I just don't want to.
However, I've been a Verizon customer for almost a decade against my will.
I can use Bing. I can use DuckDuckGo. I just don't want to.
However, I've been a Verizon customer for almost a decade against my will.
Google's probably the best but being better than your competition or offering products they don't doesn't make you a monopoly.
semantically, that's true (since mono- implies one) but that doesn't mean that they can't all exert monopoly power in the same market and be an oligopoly. each establishes unfair advantages in the same market and stifles competition, like effectively excluding new extrants, for instance.
monopolized markets aren't simply defined by the number of dominant players, but rather by how fair and competitive the markets are. while market share is an often-present characteristic of monopolists, you could have one player with 60% market share that doesn't have sufficient market poewr to raise prices. and higher profit margins resulting from undue influence over a market (with or without significant market share) can be the telling characteristic of a monopolist.
in constrast, (asian) night markets seem to be a paragon of competitive markets, where there will be 29 competitors for the same product all lined up in a row.
If Google began to charge for their services, at least there would be a way out. If a single market telecom raised prices or change policies, there isn't any real recourse.
If it is the later I can say I have definitely been harmed by cost cutting measures related to quality of service within telecom. Contractors who don't have enough training and are overworked have completely supplanted full time personnel who know their company's product and can provide competent support.