Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pei on February 20, 2004, 06:00:14 PM
-
Here is the scenario:
Company X holds a virtual monoply in it's market space. It gained that monopoly via means that were no worse or better than any other company: i.e. it more or less out competed the opposition.
It now uses that monopoly to force itself into related markets and dominate those as well, among other abuses.
The choices
A) The company got there more or less fair and square: It should be allowed to keep what it earned.
B) The monopoly should be broken up to encourage competition and hence gain all the benefits of a competitive market (or some other form of intervention should be used to create competition).
B requires goverment intervention in the market, however if A is chosen there is no free market because there is no competition.
Which would you choose and why?
-
I'd take over the world and make them pay handsome ransoms in exchange of not letting my faithful legion of killer monkeys wreak havoc among their stockholders.
Either that or option B.
Daniel
-
There are no monopolies anymore.
-
Their in Violation for "Taft Hartley" They would have to sell off some of the company.
-
B...either that or have a mafia kingpin take "special interest"
-
C) shoot Bill Gates.
-
US judicial system have chosen "A" in Microsoft case...
It's funny you call it "justice".
-
Did Company X help me buy my political office? How am I supposed to make a decision without knowing that information?
-
First of all, name one company, in history, that's maintained an actual monopoly by fair means, EI, without crossing any boundaries not crossed by their competition.
If this magical company can supply a good product, for competative prices, maintaining a well-paid workforce and not wronging anybody(which, again, is impossible, because actual monopolies always end up screwing somebody) then why break up the company? Just for the sake of giving 'the other guy' a shot? Why? Let the 'other guy' be smarter and win fairly.
This question presents an impossible hypothetical. IN reality, government intervention becomes inevitable because monopolies generally don't get there by playing on an level field.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
First of all, name one company, in history, that's maintained an actual monopoly by fair means, EI, without crossing any boundaries not crossed by their competition.
If this magical company can supply a good product, for competative prices, maintaining a well-paid workforce and not wronging anybody(which, again, is impossible, because actual monopolies always end up screwing somebody) then why break up the company? Just for the sake of giving 'the other guy' a shot? Why? Let the 'other guy' be smarter and win fairly.
This question presents an impossible hypothetical. IN reality, government intervention becomes inevitable because monopolies generally don't get there by playing on an level field.
As is said Company X is abusing it's monopoly. How did it get there? Through business practices that while they may not be fair, are at least no worse than any other big company.
These situations exist today: Microsoft is an obvious example.
-
microsoft's OS does not hold a monopoly...right off the top of my head i can think of
linux-at least 3 major versions currently in use
os/x
and for server use
novell
unix
freebsd
etc. etc.
-
Originally posted by Pei
Here is the scenario:
Company X holds a virtual monoply in it's market space. It gained that monopoly via means that were no worse or better than any other company: i.e. it more or less out competed the opposition.
It now uses that monopoly to force itself into related markets and dominate those as well, among other abuses.
The choices
A) The company got there more or less fair and square: It should be allowed to keep what it earned.
B) The monopoly should be broken up to encourage competition and hence gain all the benefits of a competitive market (or some other form of intervention should be used to create competition).
B requires goverment intervention in the market, however if A is chosen there is no free market because there is no competition.
Which would you choose and why?
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
microsoft's OS does not hold a monopoly...right off the top of my head i can think of
linux-at least 3 major versions currently in use
os/x
and for server use
novell
unix
freebsd
etc. etc.
So how many different pre installed o/s are sold on home computer systems from department stores, or specialist computer stores (or places like DELL)?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
So how many different pre installed o/s are sold on home computer systems from department stores, or specialist computer stores (or places like DELL)?
Tronsky
That doesnt define Microsoft as a monopoly. Nobody is preventing manufacturers from placing whatever OS they want on the computers they sell....PLENTY of choices out there for an OS.
-
There maybe plenty of other choices for an o/s, but no-one sells them with home computers.....windows 9x/XP (for better or worse) has been given the market, and there is no way around that...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
There maybe plenty of other choices for an o/s, but no-one sells them with home computers.....windows 9x/XP (for better or worse) has been given the market, and there is no way around that...
Tronsky
Why do you think "no one" sells computers with other operating systems? What force is causing this trend? Consumers maybe?
After all, there are FREE OS's out there better than MS right? What prevents ANYONE from selling or making systems with other OS's?
The average consumer could never maintain a Linux system, let alone install programs or drivers on the system. God forbid an average consumer had to update or re-install a Linux, UNIX, BSD system.
Then there is MAC. MAC chose to be all controlling and proprietary and lost big time. They now are more expensive and less popular as a result, yet they have a good product. Consumers dont give a rats Arse who's name is on the system they buy....they just want it to be simple, work well, have support, have software, and a good price.
To punish MS because they make the best product for consumers is stupid.
I'll bet 90% of average consumers would reject a free alternative to MS and PAY for the MS system on their systems after they tried working the other OS's
-
Company X could be Wal-Mart in that scenario, while not a complete monopoly, it's so close it's getting scary.
-
There are no monopolies anymore.
-
DELL and others dont offer linux or OS/2 or any other operating system with their PC's because there is no market for them.
however, microsoft did not push its way into a monopoly.. it became one because there was no other alternative back then.. so everything began to be built around it. it built up inertia and it all ends up to what we have today.
but it is a monopoly because it does have virtually everyone depending on their products, particularly the Windows OS, just to be able to use their PC's.
Load Linux into your PC.. see how many games you can run. See how many programs, applications, multimedia stuff, etc you can get to run on it in comparison to what you find for windows.
and MS, do not doubt it, has and does take steps to ensure this continues.. its their bussiness to keep making the max profits they can. dont forget they even made windows almost incompatible with netscape a while back :P .
If tomorrow, out of the blue, someone came out with something much better than windows it would be extremely hard for that new product to replace windows. (unless of course it was a free download *grin*).
its like beta and vhs.. beta WAS better but vhs was already widespread and mass marketed.
-
Microsoft is a Monopoly in the PC operating system environment. The number of competitors is really not relevant in determination of monopoly status, it is the amount of market share of the dominant firm.
There were plenty of alternatives to DOS in the 1980s, microsft became dominant because of superior marketing and licesing policies of non-proprietary IBM clones which used DOs as oppsed to the propriatary apple system.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Microsoft is a Monopoly in the PC operating system environment. The number of competitors is really not relevant in determination of monopoly status, it is the amount of market share of the dominant firm.
The number of competitors ( lack of) is the definition of a monopoly, as the monopoly assumes no other competitor with a similar product and has nothing to due with market share.
If MS is a monopoly in OS's or PC's, then the Beatles were a monopoly in music.
Fact is that there are equal and better products than MS for less money and even free. A monopoly has no equal or similar product availibe, cost is not a factor as that is driven by demand.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The number of competitors ( lack of) is the definition of a monopoly, as the monopoly assumes no other competitor with a similar product and has nothing to due with market share.
If MS is a monopoly in OS's or PC's, then the Beatles were a monopoly in music.
Fact is that there are equal and better products than MS for less money and even free. A monopoly has no equal or similar product availibe, cost is not a factor as that is driven by demand.
Not true NUKE, it depends on market share. For example standard oil likely had thousands of independant gas stations as competitors yet it was a monopoly. Just because you have many irrelevant competitors doesnt stop it being a monopoly. Another determinat of monopoly is pricing power of the dominant firm.
-
BTW Nuke the Beetles example doesnt work. If you bought a record player, or 8 track or tape machine or CD is beetles the only thing some 95% of those machine came installed with? And dont tell me that its "easy" to change OS, because for 99% of consumers that simply is not a practical or desiriabvle option.
-
The number of competitors is really not relevant in determination of monopoly status, it is the amount of market share of the dominant firm.
I have issues with that statement, because the logical conclusion of that reasoning is a division of the market by the participants, that is to say, price fixing.
Dell does offer linux, and it is FREE for Cods sake. Just admit that windows.... works. Anything that can go with it, and is available for free, anyway, is a boon to the consumer, not a burden.
Repeat after me:
Windows works, and it works even if you don't know dick about it.
That is why it is the dominant OS for home computers.
-
I agree with what NUKE said except for the last paragraph
I'll bet 90% of average consumers would reject a free alternative to MS and PAY for the MS system on their systems after they tried working the other OS's
I think that 90% of the average consumer could care less what OS they ran so long as it was GUI enough for them and ran all the applications they want it to run. This was true back then with Win vs OS/2 vs Mac and is true today. Now adays theres alot of build in internal techologies that MS owns. (however see last paragraph)
I dont think Microsoft is a monopoly today though there were cases in the past were it was very close to becoming one in practice.
Linux kicks arse of course and is the future. Even if Linux doesnt surpass Microsofts technology sometime in the future, it will always be there tugging at it for a very long time. Then there is always the chance some natural phenomena like a comet that will change or revolutionize the industry and Linux will be right there to reap the benefits of it.
-
Coffe you grossly underestimate microsofts brand power.
-
Well if thats what you got from what I wrote then there may have been a slight misunderstanding. I do not underestimate Microsofts brand power, rather instead Im focusing on the consumers buying power and power of choice.
;)
-
I think that 90% of the average consumer could care less what OS they ran so long as it was GUI enough for them and ran all the applications they want it to run. This was true back then with Win vs OS/2 vs Mac and is true today.
But how true is that statement? Mac was much much easier to use than IBM clones in the 1980s until MS added a GUI yet microsoft still won. At that poin t mac still had technological advantages and yet MS still won, heck apple nearly collapsed in early/mid 90s. When average people think OS they now think microsoft, and no a tech guy like you and a business student like me arent average guys. I think people would be reluctant to give up ms.
-
Well in the mainstream, the old mac was very popular when it came out. It revolutionized personal computing. Windows didnt really begin to get a good footing until Windows 2.0 came out (if I remember right). Up to then Apples were very popular. With Windows 3.0 it was in full stride competing against Apple. My opinion, what Windows ultimately had that the Mac base did not have were the number of applications (including entertainmant software).
Also Apple was propriety in architecture so alot of hardware makers and businesses went the Intell/PC route. That was another major factor in Microsofts success as an OS/platform.
-
See Bell Telephone
-
Originally posted by Lizking
There are no monopolies anymore.
time warner
almost no other cable company in the US
-
Microsoft has bound the hardware vendors to provide the computers with MS OS installed, that or they don't get MS products at all.
How's that for fair play?
-
Im enjoying my new life with mac and OS10, can't see any reason to go back to wind0ws.
After the switch to mac im a more relaxed person, almost all aggression is gone....pheuuu.
Only sad part is no AH on my puter now but hey..can't get it all :)
-
Next PC I "buy" will most likely be a Mac for home recording studio. Windows just all around sucks for this. Tried setting up a MOTU 828 under win once. The best "lag" it got was about 1.5 seconds for real time recording. But, still debating on doing the Mac thing or upgrading my roland VS1680 to a VS2480.
Next one I "build" could be win, linux, or OS/2 depending on what I'm doing for kicks at the moment. Back when I was doing the network engineering thing, we all had a win box for reports, Visio, etc, and a linux, BSD, SunOS, or Solaris for doing actual network stuff at our desks. Most of us also had self built non windows boxes at home for those oh so wonderful 3am calls of "something broke." Trying to troubleshoot a network problem with any version of windows is like masturbating with a cheese grater.
-
jigsaw
I see what you mean. This PB 15" is my first mac. I havent looked back and maybe i neve will.... nobody knows.
Was responisible for the puter system at my university for a short while and everyday someone would come by my office to get help with some win problems or getting online on our network/printers. I never had any mac users comming by, and we had plenty of them.
Started talking to one of those strange mac freaks one day and he gave me a look at his ibook and i understood why they never came by....it just worked :D
it AINT perfect, but now i spend more time with the apps and less with tinkering and tuning the operating system to get it the way i want it.
I know there is more mac haters than lovers out there but i dont really care as long as im happy :)
-
I never thought of Microsoft as a monopoly; it's simply the only company doing what it does on that scale. Nothing to stop another such company...
...which reminds me. Don't the US anti-trust laws prevent monopolies?
Microsoft got into hot water for packaging its web browser I.E. along with the operating systems because of killing NetScape. What was the end of that story?
I remember that a little later, IBM started marketing its flagship mainframe database manager - DB2 - without the DB2 utilities, because they didn't want to get into the fix that Microsoft had got into over its OS.