By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 02 August 2015
Edit Thread
generic-user-1 said:
sc94597 said:
Soleron said:

Your conclusion from that graph is that MS doesn't have a monopoly?

Only if Nintendo has a monopoly in handheld gaming would I agree that MS has a monopoly. From that graph one can see that 8% of persons choose to use Mac devices for home computing as of April 2014. Hence, one company doesn't solely (nor nearly) provide all operating systems. And that is only if we look at things in terms of marketshare. This says nothing about the number of firms that provide the good of operating systems. 

If we are using the economics definition of monopoly - a market in which only one firm owns a means of production for a good or provides a service - then the picture looks even more different. There are plenty of options, linux distributions, mac os, if we include all computing devices - android, blackberry, ios, etc, etc. Since mobile devices compete with home computers/laptops to an extent, we can't outright ignore them as competition. Especially, since we can always isolate the market of something to find a monopoly as nobody sells the same exact service. 

So yeah, my conclusion is that MS does not have a monopoly. I can always use a Linux distribution or I can purchase a MAC. That by definition precludes Microsoft from monopoly status. 

there are exactly 0 companys that provide a good operating system for private users...

apple is safety scissor of OSs  and windows was created to torture people.

linux is just like firefox free software so it doesnt count.

you dont have to have 100% controll to have enough marketmight to abuse it...

 

and yes, nintendo has a monopoly in the handheld market, but well those are toys, nobody needs em like people need computer...

That is your opinion. Linux is used quite ubiquitously for servers. The internet wouldn't be what it is without Linux. Mac OS has its 9% niche who like it. Everyone else goes with various types of Windows because it is a standard. 

Most people don't need home PCs either. Smartphones and tablets have been replacing them for most purposes. Only people in academic/computing fields need a PC of some kind, and they have a variety of options to choose for their specific purpose. 

Also the issues with monopolies are that they allow prices to rise arbitrary (versus competitive markets where businesses are price-takers.) Considering that Microsoft's software is getting cheaper/free as the years go on, it is evidence that they aren't necessarily enacting the dangers of a monopoly, mostly because they have competition outside the home PC sphere.