On 5/5/05, DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In practical economic terms Microsoft /is/ a monopoly in the operating system market. In that market Linux is still little more than a Glob Fly.
Well, "monopoly" usually means something more than just successful. It usually implies some kind of extra-market wrong-doing.
-todd
But being BIG in the marketplace is part of the definition of a monopoly. Pretty tough to be unsuccessful and be a monopoly, and vice versa without being either the government or government subsidized.
My point was that it is unfair to imply that because Linux exists as a competitor that that is evidence that Microsoft is not really a monopolist after all.
To me, neither Linux nor Google are relevant examples of successful competitors against Microsoft's anti-competitive and monopolistic business practices anyway.
Linux is not company, and not a product in the usual sense. It exists within a completely different business model and can be successful even if M$ were the only company in its own markets (unless of course M& were able, through government manipulation, outlaw Linux altogether). A better example if we insist on focusing on Linux, would be Redhat.
And Google is not really in Micro$oft's market (yet). It looks like they want to be, but so far only seem to be as significant to Google as Linux is to M$ in economic terms. M$ exerts no monopolistic control over the search engine market. As successful as it is, at this point in time, neither does Google.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
