sc94597 said:
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. |
For whether something is or is not a monopoly I look to regulator's interpretations, not textbooks. Microsoft has already been subject to penalties over its effective market control. Intel was also charged with monopoly abuse over CPUs, despite only having 2/3 of the market and with AMD's offerings being a drop-in replacement (Linux and Mac are in no way drop-in replacements for Windows).
For example, I cannot "always" use Linux or Mac because the computer software I require to make a living is not available for them, and the computer hardware I require (high performance 3D graphics cards) do not function correctly on them. The company I work for, and every other company in the area, has a signed exclusivity agreement and blanket license with MS and no one else. Mac/Linux is not an option for any of them. They don't have 100% control, but they have enough control to compel manufacturers to only sell their software on new PCs and for new software, especially commercial/business software, to be only written for their platform.
