A generalized term thrown around like a blunt object by Linux loons and freetards alike, oft. in justification of uneducated, stitched-together arguments on local or global economics.
Here is a complete lecture video from the U.C. Berkeley Economics 1 module. Notice the criteria of “monopoly” as stated in the first PowerPoint slide:
- one firm
- no entry
As long as a market meets these criteria, it is monopolized. Also, the second slide states that a monopolist is subject to the demand curve to the full extents. This implies that a monopolist simply cannot set the price of a product at an arbitrary value and expect the same amount of unit sold every time (see: 4th slide, and the subsequent two slides following Cost). In other words, neither Microsoft (or any other software firm of similar “reputation”) is by definition a monopoly, nor it can increase the price of any of its products without considering the possibility of decreased revenue (or, as the lecturer explains, “because no one is going to buy it”).
And the last but not least, calculus.
Comments
Economics and calculus? You’ll be covering hairdressing next.
For laziness’ sake, I’m prepared to give the Loons the informal use of the word “monopoly.” What I am not prepared to accept is either the “illegal” bit or the complete ignorance of the economic realities you outline here.
Related term: “antitrust”
Thrown in any situation where loon wants Microsoft to be harmed (meaning in any situation at all): Microsoft tries to enter new market? ANTITRUST! Microsoft tries to collect royalties for IP? ANTITRUST! Microsoft tries to respond to FUD? ANTITRUST!!!!1111
microsoft in the OS market has less pressure than, say, android or Western Digital. in fact, they have de facto no competition in the PC OS market. thats not a monopoly, it’s just lack of healthy competition.
“healthy competition”:
Define “healthy competition”. In economics, there is a hypothetical state known as “perfect competition”, but that’s more along the line of everyone selling the exact same thing under the same given circumstances. But I doubt that’s exact what you like to see in this particular industry.
A bit of elaboration in your part will sure help a lot in understanding what on earth you are getting at.
You blinded me with science! (calculus)
MacOS pretty much dispelled the FUD that Microsoft has some kind of supernatural power that grant them a monopoly in the Dekstop OS market. And that is, despite OS X being expensive as hell.
But when the loons mean “monopoly”, they mean the monopoly of “proprietary software companies” on the Desktop OS market. Yes, loons consider proprietary software companies as a united front against free softwarez.
c’mon guys. you are seriously gonna contend that windows or Photoshop has the same level of cutthroat competition as Honda or Burger King.
it’s true that the term healthy competition is vague. but it’s pretty obvious that OSes have a way stronger tendency of vendor lock in then text editors.
“it’s true that the term healthy competition is vague. but it’s pretty obvious that OSes have a way stronger tendency of vendor lock in then text editors.”
Vendor lock-in… I wonder why this hasn’t been made a TM yet.
Take a look at your average Honda. Everything from the fuel injection system to the chassis is as proprietary as it can get.
Fast food… Ever heard of Colonel’s 11 herbs and spices?
There is a reason experts of economics frowns on vague terms like “healthy” competition. Sure, no one could care less about you throwing it like a blunt object in your political essays, but, at the same time, you simply cannot expect people to accept something that you can go and spin in one way or another a proper category or criterion of any kind. It just doesn’t make sense.
As for the competition part – sure, Linux is clearly not gaining much ground in the market, but would you think it’s reasonable at all to expect people to start driving Yugos just because the only other choice in the market was, say, Honda? This just seems like a pathetic excuse to “support the small guy”.
Or to put it another, fairly straight-forward and pragmatic way, and one that follows the basic economic principles that Joe laid out:
(1) If there’s a healthy competitor, then that healthy competitor will seize part of the market. (The “low-hanging fruit” theory.)
(2) If there isn’t, then all you have left is the pricing mechanism.
Sounds awful, doesn’t it? But if Microsoft started charging me more for the OS than the actual hardware costs, then I’d seriously be looking at alternatives.
Jeebs. We’ve just gone through the twentieth century, with two world wars (and a cold war) and more dictatorships than you can shake a pointy stick at, and we’ve done with Carnegie and we’ve done with Rockefeller and unfortunately we have yet to deal with the morons in International Banking …
... and this is the best economic/political argument that the Loons can come up with in support of Freedom?
It’s pathetic. It’s pitiful. It’s below the radar compared to, say, gas prices at the pump.
so you don’t find it peculiar that you have a choice of brand in everything but PCs OSes. unless one contends MS has special powers.
I DO have a choice. I can choose OSX or I can choose Linux (all 5000 flavours). Nothing is preventing anyone from choosing either, yet fewer people choose Linux.
It’s a religion. They’re not really upset about a lack of choice, they’re just upset you refused to pray to their god.
Peculiar? Why would I find it peculiar? The evidence is right in front of my eyes. It’s just the way it is: no conspiracy involved.
I might just as well try to imagine it as “purple.” Or “supererogatory.”
You’re missing the point about the pricing mechanism. It’s arguable that I would buy an Apple PC if it was within my price range. If Microsofot start selling Windows licenses at $500 a pop, then I may very well revisit my decision.
i am not saying that there is a conspiracy. just the weird reason as to why windows has such a huge market share. my question is as to why another profit-seeking capitalist (other than apple) hasn’t tried to take some of Windows’s market share.
Because it’s an inefficient use of capital. Actually, the mind boggles at quite how inefficient it would be…
Needless to say, the nearest anybody came to it was IBM with OS2, and they signally trod on their own dicks throughout the entire process. To do it now would require a humongous up-front investment (in the tens of billions, I would think) with no possible income stream until five years or so down the road.
Under the circumstances, it’s never going to happen. The Loons are quite right, in a way: a more likely approach is Teh Cloudz, since at this point there are a billion or more potential customers who are just as used to the browser interface as they are to Windows.
But there are all sorts of difficulties involved there, too…
You must be signed in to leave comments.