We have customers who go to other places for our niche services (art/craft), I don't have a problem with that. We could seek to get those customers exclusively to use our services, I just don't find a compelling reason to do so (of course I'm greedy for money, but other than that?).
Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising.
Some independent stores simply aren't interested in being the monopoly in their local area for their particular product. Sometimes they just run the business because its a product they enjoy and running their own business is preferable to being an employee for someone else.
Another example of businesses not run like monopolies is with consumables like fast food. You might have a successful fish and chip shop, Chinese or Indian take-away. Most UK towns will have multiple different independent restaurants but you seldom see these restaurants open up more shops in town, or even in other towns. Yet there is clearly a demand for good take-aways.
> Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising.
pbhjpbhj's comment implies that by addressing a niche market, you would avoid the drive to monopolize. I'm arguing that if you are addressing a niche market, you are working to monopolize that market, and you don't have to monopolize the whole market of similar services to be a monopoly. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly (in this case a government one) on producing Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft Windows is not the only PC operating system.
Similarly, you could monopolize a certain demographic. For example, Microsoft has an effective monopoly in PC operating systems when it comes to government administration workstations in most countries.
>> I'm arguing that if you are addressing a niche market, you are working to monopolize that market, and you don't have to monopolize the whole market of similar services to be a monopoly.
That's pretty much what a monopoly is, and even in your niche, not everyone wants to be a monopoly.
I have a friend who runs a small craft beer bar. Another craft beer bar is going to open two doors down. To him this is great - the area becomes known for craft beer and more people come along. There is no monopoly there.
>> For example, Microsoft has a monopoly (in this case a government one) on producing Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft Windows is not the only PC operating system.
But they tried to make it that way, and came close for a while. That's the time period they had various anti-competition lawsuits aimed at them.
This is what most people are talking about when they are talking about monopolies, and it's clear that not every business aims to be one.
The sibling comment by laumars puts the position well - perhaps you could explain where I'm erring? I consider a monopoly to be exclusive control of a market niche by one company (eg limited to a particular geographic area). Uber would have a monopoly if they drive out competing taxi services (or "private hire" in the UK, depending on the scope of the niche you want to focus on).
