That's not true at all lol... if you're not providing a service for your customers then there should be room for competition, but if competition can't compete, even if they offer a better service, that's bad

Disney is not blocking alternative service this way

Yeah but you can't do that with a monopoly because you end up not giving a shit about your consumers

They are quite often offering terrible deals to theaters, and they have faced backlash for that, too. Some theaters have strictly refused to take such deals.

i mean, if you want, i can do a deep search, but i'll bet money there's at least one virtual monopoly in this chart https://storage.googleapis.com/titlemax-media/1c8ace8f-every-company-disney-owns-13_pageversion-lg.jpg

It no longer produces high end products . It just mass produces junk. Ask Trump to do the analysis because I am sure , he would agree this is what's happened to the British markets .

They deplete the markets and then there is no growth or room for improvement.

I know Disney is a monopoly, my argument is that monopolies are not a bad thing

they aren't if there is room for competition

You're looking at it the wrong way in my opinion

There is room for competition though

Well you like to be the opposite of normal . You like to be argumentative without sound based arguments.

No there isn't if they take over or merge .

Then the legislation they come out with polarises those companies .

You can compete with Disney, you just don't become as big as Disney right now, because either you give up along the way or you get bought up, but nothing's actively stopping you.

There's a difference between being a strong competitor and being a competitor

That's what they said about Hollywood and it went bust.

There's always room for improvement when you have another big in the picture.

The issue with Google, Facebook, Twitter is not that they're virtual monopolies

The issue is they're protected from lawsuits because they're mislabeled as platforms when they're actually behaving like publishers.

IBM and silicon valley ... I rest my case

Okay so lets look at it they way i'm trying to look at it.

I set up a lemonade stand on a corner street. I operate for 5 years. I now have a nice shack, comfortable seating, a ceiling fan, and an employee

Now in order to maximize profits I degrade the quality of my lemonade and also reduce it's price. It's not unfair but it's also not that great of lemonade. I'm the only place around, where else are you going to get lemonade?

Now someone says 'fuck you and your lemonade I'm making my own' and they make a small stand opposite of mine. They have to sell their lemonade at a higher price because otherwise they may lose money. Their lemonade is of a much better quality, they are much more responsive and respectful to their customers.

However they don't get that many people because, everyone already visits me. I don't care about him, i'm not actively trying to shut him down, however he'll get stangled simply because, even though my lemonade isn't as good, it's much cheaper in a much better environment with everyone who's been buying it for the past 5 years.

Then you're not in demand enough, tough luck, fit your product to meet the demand then

There's nothing stopping you from doing that

@Holo that's it, and this is what happens when the big boys start to get legal and then push people around with their mergers . Because you can buy them out and claim copyrights and persue legal action.

Which means, poetic licence is not available in the arts industry and everything becomes a rerun.

"push people around with their mergers" you're talking nonsense

so lets put it even farther, i expand my store to sell other things than lemonade and we'll increase the quality of the lemonade 10 fold.

I'm a shit owner, i'm a bit rude and can be a bit preachy to my customers, but my lemonade is the absolute best, so people come anyways.

Now in order to make my lemonade the best, i have to use the best ingredients, which raises the cost, but i don't want to, so i reduce the cost so i actually lose 10% on every lemonade i sell.

I make that 10% back though from the sale of other items in my store.

Now same dude on the other side of the street. He is much nicer, a great person, he's willing to do anything for his customers. He can't compete with me though, because I operate a loss, and am fine because of my other sales.

So he goes out of business without me doing anything

Copyrights are an issue, yes. But that's a different problem

we'll assume the quality of the lemonade is the same

Dude

You're just proving that competition works, you're just making it so the competitors aren't offering the product that is in ACTUAL demand

Or the service

@ETBrooD she woops your bum and you're not knowledgeable in mergers and legislative assembly of claims. Get with it.

no? in both cases the competition balks under the pressure from the original company and can't compete

The competition fails not because of the monopoly, but because of their own incompetence

the first case however, i would say is customer error mostly, since they continue to visit the bad service regardless

the second case, however is not error on customer or on business owner, but because the guy with the big store has the ability to offer his service at an absolute loss, and still be an utter dick to his customers, the other person can't compete

That's literally what I said

Customer is king, this is always true, and it describes how demand works

Make youtube then