By your definition, lets imagine a world where Amazon had 100% of the market and there were no other competitors, even if it happened naturally, without malicious intent, they wouldn’t be a monopoly? Come on.
I dont see 'has to act a specific way' in any definitions of monopoly. A monopoly isnt about being evil, or 'actions taken to make such an outsized market power' even if thats often part of the result, but just describes their position in the field.
This isn’t about how a company got there, it’s about where they currently are. Steam may not have crushed competitors aggressively like Disney or Nintendo, but its market dominance and control over PC game distribution still fits the textbook definition of a monopoly.
Steam has ~79.5% of the PC gaming market, I’m one of their customers and love their service, but that doesnt change that “monopoly”fits them.
Thanks, that was done intentionally, to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I assume we both agree that Amazon is an effective monopoly (though i have had people fight me on that too!)
You say its not your definition, but i linked three different definitions which didn't use that language. in fact, in all my searching, not a SINGLE definition includes a discussion on how they got there, but on the **CURRENT **state of the market.
Here's another source:
This is why I say Steam has an effective monopoly.
So yes, it seems like you’re using your personal definition, but it contradicts the actual, widely accepted definitions.
If you want to call me out and say "you initially said it WAS a monopoly, but its only an EFFECTIVE monopoly", ill take that egg on my face, its earned and i should be more careful with my words.