Too many people think Microsoft is the devil and consider it to be the symbol of corruption and evil. People complain about how Microsoft is a monopoly. A monopoly is a market structure in which a single seller of a product with (1) no close substitutes serves the entire market. To maintain a monopoly a company has to setup barriers to the markets entry such as (2) legal restrictions and control over (3) essential resources.
Each point applied to Microsoft:
1. No close substitutes?a. For every single product that Microsoft makes there are many close substitutesi. Internet Explorer – Netscape, Mozillaii. Windows – Linux, Mac OS X, Linux with Windows compatibility, Sun OSiii. MS Office – Word Perfect, Oracle Office, OpenOffice.orgiv. Xbox – PS2, Nintendo, Dreamcastv. IIS – Apachevi. SQL – MySQL, Oraclevii. ASP – Java, PHP, Jsp, Perl2. Legal restrictionsa. There are noneb. Joe Shmo can make his own software and sell it.3. Control over essential resourcesa. The only resources that is necessary for writing software is brain powerb. There is no control over brainpower by Microsoft.c. Many computer companies exist, with many brilliant employees
To say that Microsoft is a monopoly is by no means a valid statement. Yes Microsoft controls 90% of the home software over the counter industry but the consumers choose to make Windows the leading product of home computing because it is good software. They at any time could have chose to get a Mac or go with Linux based computer, but they choose windows. They were not forced to purchase Windows.
Perhaps the only justification of the lawsuits that occurred over the last few years is against Microsoft’s unfair business practices, but calling it a monopoly is unjustified. To me it seems that all these little pathetic companies bought politicians when they couldn’t compete in the marketplace. They are nothing more than looters. The reasons these lawsuits came up were because Microsoft didn’t donate to politicians as other software companies did in the late 90′s. You can imagine what Microsoft is going to be doing from now on, and they most definitely can afford it.
Monopolies only occur in the marketplace, where government puts in regulation to protect the industry. Most monopolies so far in American history have been direct products of government interference with capitalism.
Of course Microsoft is not a monopoly, that’s why the government is spending thousands of dollars to prosecute and investigate Microsoft. What is the US gov. made up possibly of some of the most brilliant economists thinking… It’s all fubar.
Wow, that was a pretty terrible article.
True no one was “forced” to use windows, but they were coerced by microsoft’s pricing plan (big discounts for companies that ONLY sell microsoft systems) and hidden file formats (so competors can’t enter the marketplace.
“Perhaps the only justification of the lawsuits that occurred over the last few years is against Microsoft’s unfair business practices”
That, Ashutosh, is the definition of a monopoly. You can be a company who dominates the marketplace and not be a monopoly as long as you follow the laws and don’t engage in unfair business practices. Your definition of a monopoly is flawed because it is only the textbook definition, not the definition in a legal sense. A federal judge has decided, not by his own volition, but BY INTERPRETING ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION, that Microsoft is a monopoly. Whether Microsoft makes good products are not is irrelevent.
I don’t know if your anti-government statements are trying to promote some sort of libertarian ideals, but even libertarians, such as Eric S. Raymond (you know who that is right?), support anti-trust legislation because they realize microsoft’s way of doing business is not capitialist.
Greg, don’t respond man, your just giving more fuel to the Ashu’s anarchistic flames…
Greg, what is your defintion of monopoly?
Microsoft case is settled; agreement has been reached. Whats the fuss? I like Microsoft, what if they do monopoly… I say if you can do it why not? Plus, people do have a choise, we choose to use there products so we are supporting its “monopolization”. I say if your against MS monopoly; format your computer ASAP. You show them your support for a capitalistic world, it all starts with one, but if your unwilling to do so, and all you do is complain about it, well then your nothing but a monopolist supporter, aren’t you now?
-Jeff Lee
Monopolies cannot survive in an open market. Look at Apple. Back nearly a decade about when IBM released it technology to other computer firms and gave them permission to make PC’s Apple refused. When Intel gave it architecture out to other Silicon Valley firms, Apple kept its technology to itself. They gave rights to two smaller companies but then later revoked them as they were competing with the Mac Store.
Apple has attempted to maintain is monopoly on its technology and look where it has gotten them. Apple has less than 10% of the market? PC’s clearly dominate the computer market, simple because there are more suppliers and the prices are kept down and affordable. Mac’s are nearly double and even triple the prices of PC’s.
Look at Netscape. Why are they losing? Netscape half a decade ago had nearly 70% of the market share in Internet browsing. They lost terribly because they started giving their product out for free, when Microsoft came out with Internet Explorer bundled in Windows 98. When you give your product out for free how can you possibly expect to compete against a corporation that is making a profit on its product?
Why is Microsoft still the 5th largest company in America? Microsoft doesn’t release its source code. The only reason Microsoft is still surviving is because keeps coming out with innovative new technology at an affordable price. Microsoft has no capital other than the brains of its employees. The only method of their creating wealth is constantly competing against themselves to make better products.
You say Microsoft is a monopoly? Why was it only able to convert twenty some odd percent of its Windows 98, ME, 2000 consumers to XP.
People who keep calling Microsoft a monopoly keep making up meaningless figures. Recently graphs published show that Microsoft’s share of operating systems is 92 percent and its share of office suites is 94 percent. On the bottom of the graph it says that these figures are only for software “sold over the counter”. Most operating systems are purchased with a computer, not separately.
Try buying a copy of Sun’s Solaris, Palm OS, or even Mac OS at CompUsa. Companies that do not sell software over the counter are likely to have a small share of the over-the-counter software sales.
Office also generally comes with a new computer. In the case of Dell, Gateway, HP and many others, the new computers usually come with Corel Office Suite, not MS Office. MS Office is an add-on. In any case, monopoly means consumers have no choices, not that most choose MS Office or Windows. In hand-held computers, the fact most people choose Palm over Windows does not mean Palm has a monopoly.
If we are going to accept the way the government have defined Microsoft’s market share, then we might just as well claim Gillette has a huge market share in razors if we leave out electric shavers and BIC because they are disposable. We might as well claim Jell-o has a monopoly of cold desserts, if we leave out ice cream and pudding.
Monopolies do not thrive in the open market, they are simply crushed by the market.
all em damn pussy companys that couldn’t beat microsft by making a better product instead bought million dollar politicians to get what they wanted. put all the bastards in jail.
I use Microsoft because it is better. I don’t use Linux or Lotus or Apples because they can’t match. It’s not a fault of Microsoft that they attract better designers and programmers. If they were so evil, why does it attract so many talented people? You would think that these bright individuals wouldn’t want to be the tool of oppression. They work at Microsoft because they know that its not oppressive, just successful and better thought-out than its competitors.
Netscape didn’t lose because it was given away for free, it was because Microsoft put out a free product, Internet Explorer, that was better. That’s okay, but then they decided to bundle it with the system, clearly not okay as it kills competition.
Yes, today, many PC makers sell things other than Microsoft Office. Why is this? Microsoft has lessened its hold on the makers in order to look less monopolistic to the government. Did you try to buy a PC before 2 or 3 years ago? All you could get was Micrsoft stuff.
By the way, my definition of a monopoly is a company that dominates a certain markets and uses unfair or illegal business products in order to keep or further their position.
Yes, I currently use Windows XP, although I usually have a dual-boot. Some software I NEED to use (stuff for work) and videogames, only runs under windows. I have no choice. Admittedly, Windows is better for the majority of computer users, but it is not right that some people are FORCED to use it.
Your comments about Apple are way off, by the way. Apple computers are hardly “2 or 3 times more expensive,” you are basing those on numbers like processor speed. Apple’s run on a different architecture and compete favorably with PCs in some areas, and not so favorably in others. I spoke to the former head of Apple benchmarking, he could give you a list of pro-cons for the Apple architecture, but comparing the architectures directly is misleading and wrong.
Monopolies cannot survive. Funny. I don’t remember AT&T having too hard a time surviving before the break-up. You give one example of a monopoly that made some stupid mistakes and lost their share. That is hardly an example of “monopolies not being able to survive.”
Yes, excellent people work at Microsoft. MICROSOFT PAYS A LOT OF MONEY! You cannot expect everyone to be altruistically idealistic; I assume some Microsoft employees enjoy driving a car, owning a home, and (gasp!) eating food. Using your logic, because you buy gas to fill up your car (sorry jeff), that you means you support terrorism and prefer Suddam Hussein to George W. Bush, when in truth you just want to drive to school. There are some realities in this world that make it impossible to be idealistic all the time.
Actually, Microsoft doesn’t pay lots of money to a many of thier programmers. Nearly 35% of their work force is in Hyderbad, India and they pay an American $1000 dollars to them per month.
That’s 12,000 USD a year, which is nearly 35 times the average income in India. Some people may say they are exploiting the Indian’s but actually its a Win-Win situation. Microsoft doesn’t have to pay $70,000 for what they can get for $12,000 and the Indian programmer is making nearly triple than any India based computer company is paying.