Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking?

> The threshold is not 100% market share.

I never once said so

I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable competitors out there, in fact one has to use a functional and fully featured competitors product to go and install Chrome on most platforms out there.

How can one claim Chrome is a monoply when there are tons of competitors out there which work just fine, and for most users their computers came with the competitors products?

Please, do enlighten me, how is Chrome a monopoly?

Breaking?

They're being a monopoly by having a huge market share. A majority of browers are directly branded chrome, and the chrome team has strong codebase control over most of the alternatives too. Especially on desktop. It's that simple.

> I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable competitors out there, in fact one has to use a functional and fully featured competitors product to go and install Chrome on most platforms out there.

> How can one claim Chrome is a monoply when there are tons of competitors out there which work just fine, and for most users their computers came with the competitors products?

The existence of competition doesn't change whether something is a monopoly. It only disproves 100%, which is why I mentioned 100%.

The choices of users don't change whether something is a monopoly.

Marketshare alone isn't a defining part of if a product is a monopoly.

> majority of browers are directly branded chrome

They're not Chrome, in many extremely important aspects.

> The choices of users don't change whether something is a monopoly

The fact users can make a choice is a huge part of the argument that Chrome isn't a monopoly. There are lots of competitors out there that can be freely chosen. So much so people have to go out of their way to install Chrome.

When AT&T was ruled a monopoly it was practically the only choice in many markets. When Standard Oil was ruled a monopoly it was practically the only choice in many markets. People can choose Edge. People can choose Safari. People can choose Firefox. All of these browsers work fine (I've yet to be told a single other major feature they're missing despite asking many times), and are not Chrome.

Lay's sells like 60% or so of the chips sold in the US. Are they a monopoly? Are you practically unable to buy any other chips at the store outside of Lays products? I guess it's not really just marketshare that makes the difference! So just pointing at them and saying they're a monopoly because they have a large marketshare is meaningless.

Yes it is. You're thinking of something else.

> The fact users can make a choice is a huge part of the argument that Chrome isn't a monopoly.

That argument is wrong.

It's size and market power. If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power.

> Lay's sells like 60% or so of the chips sold in the US. Are they a monopoly?

They're at least close, yeah.

Finally one states something other than its a monopoly because it has market share or because its advertised heavily. Its a monopoly because it allegedly has market power. But does it, really?

> If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power.

Is it that it has power or just that its currently popular?

I once again ask, what features actually force me to use Chrome over the other products on the market? If there are none, how does it actually have "market power"? What truly makes me use Chrome over the others? The fact its highly advertised?

Market power is usually defined as "a firm's ability to profitably raise prices above the competitive level (marginal cost) without losing significant sales to competitors." Clearly we're not talking about prices here, practically all the prices are free here. So we're talking other kinds of featuresets. What is this market power, other than users like it? I've asked many times, and yet everyone has refused to answer this core, critical part of the claim.

If people can make a choice for a competitor's product that's priced the exact same and has essentially the same feature set, how does Chrome have "market power"?

I pointed out WebUSB. For a bit pretty much only Chrome supported it. Is that really market power that's pushing everyone to use Chrome? What other things are actually giving it that immense market power you claim?

It's a core, critical part of a monopoly abuse claim, not a monopoly claim. I don't want to get in that argument.

They don't have some weird ultra low market power for their size. They're a monopoly.

> It's size and market power.

We both agree on the size. Its the most popular browser for sure. And I agree, a monopoly generally has to be quite large and it doesn't need to be 100%.

When I ask you for evidence of the market power side of the monopoly claim, you just throw up your hands and say "I don't want to get in that argument", make some claim about the self-evidence of their market power, and then just assert they're a monopoly.

I'm just asking someone to actually point out how Chrome, the web browser has outsized market power. Not just restate they have high usage numbers, but actual instances showcasing their market power. Real studies about how sticky Chrome actually is. Anything like that. But nobody here will actually point to anything other hand waving about how much its marketed and what not.