Gmail is not a monopoly. When it comes to actual paying customers, it is not even the market leader
> ridiculous assertion.
What is ridiculous is the idea that running an email service a massive scale like Gmail is somehow free.
> ridiculous assertion.
What is ridiculous is the idea that running an email service a massive scale like Gmail is somehow free.
https://pdx.social/@evergreensewing/116388477430172491
> For the first time since we started the company back in January/February, we have a customer who does NOT use Gmail for their email address.
> In case you wanted to see what a monopoly looks like.
MariaDB > SELECT SUBSTRING_INDEX(email, '@', -1) AS domain, COUNT(*) AS cnt FROM accounts GROUP BY domain HAVING domain != '' ORDER BY cnt DESC LIMIT 10;
+-------------+-------+
| domain | cnt |
+-------------+-------+
| hotmail.com | 38015 |
| gmail.com | 16280 |
| yahoo.com | 4080 |
| o2.pl | 2321 |
| wp.pl | 2206 |
| live.com | 1415 |
| outlook.com | 814 |
| interia.pl | 609 |
| hotmail.es | 590 |
| live.se | 521 |
+-------------+-------+
10 rows in set (0.044 sec)Another way monopolies form is via exclusionary practices and the resulting impression that "things that aren't gmail are less reliable". (Anti-spam does not have to be exclusionary, and anti-spam is generally a good thing, but when it reliably sends smaller providers' mail to spam based solely on them being smaller providers, it is.)
Another way monopolies form is via social effects. "What's your gmail?", or people on first-tier technical support hearing you say an email address and assuming it's a gmail address and having to be corrected, and having never encountered one of those before.
Assuming any of those are "voluntary preference" is a take.
This must be the half I have never heard of then. What non-google websites specifically require a google account?
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly : "In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises."
Or from Milton Freedman, "Monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it". https://archive.org/details/capitalismfreedo0000frie/page/12...
In the post-Borkian interpretation of monopoly, adored by the rich and powerful because it enables market concentration which would otherwise be forbidden, consumer price is the main measure of control, hence free services can never be a monopoly.
Scholars have long pointed out Bork's view results from a flawed analysis of the intent of the Sherman Antitrust act. For example, Sherman wrote "If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade, with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity.” (Emphasis mine. Widely quoted, original transcript at p2457 of https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1890/03/... ). Freedman makes a similar point (see above) that a negative effect of a monopoly is to reduce access to alternatives.
One well-known rejection of the Borkian view is in Lina Khan "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox" paper. https://yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf
In it she quotes Robert Pitofsky in "The Political Content of Antitrust":
"A third and overriding political concern is that if the free-market sector of the economy is allowed to develop under antitrust rules that are blind to all but economic concerns, the likely result will be an economy so dominated by a few corporate giants that it will be impossible for the state not to play a more intrusive role in economic affairs"
(I can't find a copy of that source online, but you can see the quote at https://archive.org/details/traderegulationc0005pito/mode/2u... where Pitofsky rejects viewing antitrust law through an exclusively economic lens.)
Even if you support the Borkian interpretation, you should still worry about the temptation for the US government to "play a more intrusive role" with GMail accounts. I strongly doubt Google will follow Lavabit's lead and shut down email should the feds come by with a gag order to turn over the company's private keys.
In the name of national security, of course.