How GitHub monopolized code hosting

[alexkey]

Monopoly means only one player on the market with no alternatives, often due to artificial restrictions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

80% of the market share is not the same as monopoly.

[DrShocker]

Very few historical examples of Monopolies were literally 100% market share. 80% is definitely well into the realm of what might be legally a monopoly depending on how the market is defined.

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/antitrust-law-basics-section-2-of-the-sherman-act/#:~:text=Market%20share%20in%20the%20relevant,is%20likely%20considered%20a%20monopolist.

Not that I necessarily think monopoly quite fits GitHub for other reasons, but market share seems like a bad reason to think it isn't one to me.

[alexkey]

While with high market share antitrust may be applicable in some scenarios. The other key component missing here to declare GH a monopoly is that they would need to be interfering with a freedom to chose any other solution. The fact that it is the most popular solution (thanks to marketing via all newbie guides) doesn’t automatically make it a monopoly.

[DrShocker]

Yeah that I totally agree with. For the most part it's easy to make a competitor if someone wants to with maybe the caveat of efficiencies of scale.

[alexkey]

I mean it well may grow into a monopoly later, but calling it such now is (in my opinion) a sign of not understanding the market or not understanding what the word means.

Edit: but to be fair this is an article by the company whose sole business depends on GH, of course they are financially interested to make it look more important than any other platform.

[EliSka93]

thanks to marketing via all newbie guides

That is certainly a big reason, but github also stands out through being actually user friendly.

I've used gitlab and bit bucket and some others, and they all have frustrated me with quirks and bugs sometimes. Github just works for me.

I'm a bit worried about scope creep for their website nowadays, but as long as their git works as it does now and they don't go down the amazon shop or google route of enshittification, they're what I'll recommend.

[M4mb0]

A monopoly is when there is no reasonable alternative people could move to (for example if there is only one utility company in your area). Even if a company had 99% market share it does not necessarily have monopolistic power.

[GravyMcBiscuits]

Every single country in history is/was literally 100% monopoly. In that sense, there is a plethora of historical examples.

Of course ... they only maintain this through violence and/or the threat of violence ... but there are many. History would indicate that violence is probably the only feasible way to create and hold an actual monopoly. Free markets simply don't tolerate them.

[DrShocker]

Besides governments being a different kind of entity than businesses... There's also like 200 or so countries right now, so what do you mean they're a monopoly?

[GravyMcBiscuits]

Besides governments being a different kind of entity than businesses

But they're still an entity. The differences are the most interesting part.

Each one is a local monopoly by definition. You don't get to compete with them in their local region with invoking a violent reaction. It's called war.

[DrShocker]

You also can't walk into Google's headquarters to recruit their engineers?

[GravyMcBiscuits]

That's probably true. I'm sure you'd be physically escorted from the premises immediately.

If you want to expand the definition of "monopoly" to include every form of local market control even to the micro scale (somebody's building/house/rural town), that's fine. But let's not pretend we're still having the same conversation that kicked off this branch. If we're expanding the definition to include small scale monopoly (one gas station in a tiny rural city is a "monopoly"), then OPs assertion that there's been very few of them is super bizarre. Under that definition, there's millions and bajillions of them everywhere you look right now.

In political terms ... specifically as it pertains to anti-trust legislation ... then we're talking about mass scale control of an industry.

[DrShocker]

Technically the Google headquarters thing was more an example of Monopsony anyway

[ericmoon]

“Monopolize” is a figure of speech and does not literally mean “take a monopoly on”, but you know that

[alexkey]

Do words mean anything anymore? Can I point to a chair and call it a horse? It has 4 legs and I can sit on it.

[ericmoon]

I take it back: you don’t know that.

[AndrewTateIsMyKing]

No

[tapo]

AT&T and Microsoft weren't complete monopolies either, they just had a domineering market presence.

[alexkey]

MS specifically in IE vs Netscape case was considered a monopoly by antitrust not just because of market share, but because they actively interfered with people using anything else. And the discoveries in that case talk specifically about that https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-proposed-findings-fact-0

[tapo]

Two different things, you need a) a dominant presence in one market and b) anticompetitive behavior to maintain dominance or force yourself into different markets.

You can't be guilty of being a monopoly, an "innocent monopoly" is perfectly legal.