• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For everyone in the back of the room, monopoly in the context doesn’t require to literally have no other choice. It’s enough for the alternatives to be impractical as in not widely used in practice.

    • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well that’s an easy one then, if that’s true.

      Especially for Apple phones, damn.

      • DragonTypeWyvern
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah it’s pretty obnoxious how much control the app stores have.

        It does make device security easier, but

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it possible that alternatives are not widely used because most people don’t want to use alternatives in the first place?

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure it is. It doesn’t change the monopoly position. The real question isn’t whether this is a monopoly but whether it’s being abused. E.g. imagine if Google charged 99% fee on any sale via the Play Store. Or if Google disallowed alternative methods of payment but their own for any app distributed on the Play Store.