ironman said: Reasonable said: ironman said: Guys, MS does not have a monopoly, it certainly looks like it because they have a huge portion of the market share, but as long as there are Linux based O.S., and the Apple O.S. people have a choice. A monopoly does not give people a choice. Oh, and if you think for one second that Google won't pull the same shit MS pulls, then you need therapy. With over 95% market share the last time I looked MS absolutely do have a monopoly position and have absolutely abused it numerous times. I agree though that Google is quitely trying to built a monopoly itself, no question about it.  Right now it doesn't have as much of a monoply as MS does, but they're sure trying. Ideally Google will seriously weaken MS stranglehold on OS and Office systems but be unable (or restrained themselves) for setting themselves up in place of MS with a stranglehold on content/internet access.   Unless MS has 100% of the market share, they do not have a monopoly. Consumers still have a choice of O.S. as well as many apps. So once again, no monopoly.

If i go to a electronics store and ask for a Linux computer, they tell me they don't have any. Then i ask for a computer without operating system, and they tell me that all their computers come from a vendor, that puts Windows to all computers it distributes. Then i ask for Apple and they point to the other end of the store: "The Ipods are over there".

M$ does have a monopoly position because all the hardware vendors put Windows as an operating system for their computers. Even if you'd run Linux on your computer, you still have likely paid for Windows. M$:s market is the PC companies, not consumers.

ironman said: Reasonable said: ironman said: Guys, MS does not have a monopoly, it certainly looks like it because they have a huge portion of the market share, but as long as there are Linux based O.S., and the Apple O.S. people have a choice. A monopoly does not give people a choice. Oh, and if you think for one second that Google won't pull the same shit MS pulls, then you need therapy. With over 95% market share the last time I looked MS absolutely do have a monopoly position and have absolutely abused it numerous times. I agree though that Google is quitely trying to built a monopoly itself, no question about it.  Right now it doesn't have as much of a monoply as MS does, but they're sure trying. Ideally Google will seriously weaken MS stranglehold on OS and Office systems but be unable (or restrained themselves) for setting themselves up in place of MS with a stranglehold on content/internet access.   Unless MS has 100% of the market share, they do not have a monopoly. Consumers still have a choice of O.S. as well as many apps. So once again, no monopoly.

 

There are almost no 100% monopolies anymore but there are situations so close as considered to be a monopoly in business terms.

Some tiny alternatives that are not even made generally available don't count in business terms.  For the general consumer there is 1 choice - Windows OS - when buying a PC.  Linux, etc. are only being used by a tiny number of users making a specific choice.  Mac OS doesn't count as that is only on another platform.

Since IBM dropped OS2 MS has enjoyed an essential monopoly on OS.  Splitting hairs because a few technical folks install Linux doesn't change that - nor change the power MS has wielded on the basis of their position.

Even with the Google annoucement that is only specific to certain tech - netbooks.  Until there is a viable OS for PCs, laptops, etc. MS enjoys all the privilages of a monopoly and is rightly viewed by the majority of people of having a monopoly - or, if you do want to spilt hairs, to have a virtual monopoly - i.e. so close as to make no difference.

Mono = one.

Therefore you fools, Microsoft is a monopoly.

The Mac is not a PC, Lunux is not viable in the consumer space.

Google = Monopoly
Sony = was at a near monopolistic level using some pretty vicious tactics of price cuts to essentially try to drive out competition.
Console = Oligopoly/Monopolistic competition (hard to say)

I can't sleep.

ironman said: Reasonable said: ironman said: Guys, MS does not have a monopoly, it certainly looks like it because they have a huge portion of the market share, but as long as there are Linux based O.S., and the Apple O.S. people have a choice. A monopoly does not give people a choice. Oh, and if you think for one second that Google won't pull the same shit MS pulls, then you need therapy. With over 95% market share the last time I looked MS absolutely do have a monopoly position and have absolutely abused it numerous times. I agree though that Google is quitely trying to built a monopoly itself, no question about it.  Right now it doesn't have as much of a monoply as MS does, but they're sure trying. Ideally Google will seriously weaken MS stranglehold on OS and Office systems but be unable (or restrained themselves) for setting themselves up in place of MS with a stranglehold on content/internet access.   Unless MS has 100% of the market share, they do not have a monopoly. Consumers still have a choice of O.S. as well as many apps. So once again, no monopoly.

In the UK Tesco's were accused of having a Monopoly with a little over 40% market share. You really do not need anywhere near 100% market share to have a monopoly. You don't even need half the market share.

I guess Microsoft figured if they could really own the computer industry, they might as well takeover the game industry. Their first attempt with the Xbox 1. It was good but not good enough to beat the immortal Playstation 2 in sales. Next gen, Xbox 360 destroyed Sony this time with their much improved onlive service that brings quality to games and movies like never before including an amazing library. However, 360 just not strong enough to finally hit #1 in the console war which is were the Wii is. Hopefully third time is the charm and the next xbox console could get the job done by finally hitting th number #1 spot and winnning the console war. Maybe, just maybe, 8th gen will finally be the year Microsoft reaches the brass ring in the gaming industry. Or Sony could always make a comeback next generation and have as much as a successful generation they had with the PS2 or maybe even more!

Snake612 said: I guess Microsoft figured if they could really own the computer industry, they might as well takeover the game industry. Their first attempt with the Xbox 1. It was good but not good enough to beat the immortal Playstation 2 in sales. Next gen, Xbox 360 destroyed Sony this time with their much improved onlive service that brings quality to games and movies like never before including an amazing library. However, 360 just not strong enough to finally hit #1 in the console war which is were the Wii is. Hopefully third time is the charm and the next xbox console could get the job done by finally hitting th number #1 spot and winnning the console war. Maybe, just maybe, 8th gen will finally be the year Microsoft reaches the brass ring in the gaming industry. Or Sony could always make a comeback next generation and have as much as a successful generation they had with the PS2 or maybe even more!

You talk like Microsoft dominating this industry would be a good thing :S

That's why I think MS don't care to have their own exclusives. That's why MS paid developers to take the PS exclusives like GTA, Tekken, and so on. That was MS plan all alone to take the games that made the PS2 so propular. To stop the PS3 from selling MS took away what made the PS brand hot.

C_Hollomon MS didnt pay a cent for any PS exclusives,Sony REFUSED to pay to keep them exclusive,therefore they went MP and sold better on 360. Get your facts straight.

bdbdbd said: ironman said: Reasonable said: ironman said: Guys, MS does not have a monopoly, it certainly looks like it because they have a huge portion of the market share, but as long as there are Linux based O.S., and the Apple O.S. people have a choice. A monopoly does not give people a choice. Oh, and if you think for one second that Google won't pull the same shit MS pulls, then you need therapy. With over 95% market share the last time I looked MS absolutely do have a monopoly position and have absolutely abused it numerous times. I agree though that Google is quitely trying to built a monopoly itself, no question about it.  Right now it doesn't have as much of a monoply as MS does, but they're sure trying. Ideally Google will seriously weaken MS stranglehold on OS and Office systems but be unable (or restrained themselves) for setting themselves up in place of MS with a stranglehold on content/internet access.   Unless MS has 100% of the market share, they do not have a monopoly. Consumers still have a choice of O.S. as well as many apps. So once again, no monopoly. If i go to a electronics store and ask for a Linux computer, they tell me they don't have any. Then i ask for a computer without operating system, and they tell me that all their computers come from a vendor, that puts Windows to all computers it distributes. Then i ask for Apple and they point to the other end of the store: "The Ipods are over there". M$ does have a monopoly position because all the hardware vendors put Windows as an operating system for their computers. Even if you'd run Linux on your computer, you still have likely paid for Windows. M$:s market is the PC companies, not consumers.

Ypu can still custom build PC's. Or you can hire somebody to do it for you. You can then put a Linux based OS on them if you wish, and there are programs out there that let you run aplications that were optimized for Windows if you want to play games and such. So no, you are wrong again. Also, I'm sure you still found a way to get your apple computer did you not? Or were you forced into buying a PC by an evil monopoly?

ironman said: bdbdbd said: ironman said: Reasonable said: ironman said: Guys, MS does not have a monopoly, it certainly looks like it because they have a huge portion of the market share, but as long as there are Linux based O.S., and the Apple O.S. people have a choice. A monopoly does not give people a choice. Oh, and if you think for one second that Google won't pull the same shit MS pulls, then you need therapy. With over 95% market share the last time I looked MS absolutely do have a monopoly position and have absolutely abused it numerous times. I agree though that Google is quitely trying to built a monopoly itself, no question about it.  Right now it doesn't have as much of a monoply as MS does, but they're sure trying. Ideally Google will seriously weaken MS stranglehold on OS and Office systems but be unable (or restrained themselves) for setting themselves up in place of MS with a stranglehold on content/internet access.   Unless MS has 100% of the market share, they do not have a monopoly. Consumers still have a choice of O.S. as well as many apps. So once again, no monopoly. If i go to a electronics store and ask for a Linux computer, they tell me they don't have any. Then i ask for a computer without operating system, and they tell me that all their computers come from a vendor, that puts Windows to all computers it distributes. Then i ask for Apple and they point to the other end of the store: "The Ipods are over there". M$ does have a monopoly position because all the hardware vendors put Windows as an operating system for their computers. Even if you'd run Linux on your computer, you still have likely paid for Windows. M$:s market is the PC companies, not consumers. Ypu can still custom build PC's. Or you can hire somebody to do it for you. You can then put a Linux based OS on them if you wish, and there are programs out there that let you run aplications that were optimized for Windows if you want to play games and such. So no, you are wrong again. Also, I'm sure you still found a way to get your apple computer did you not? Or were you forced into buying a PC by an evil monopoly?

Yes i was. It's hard to find sub-1000€ Mac laptops, not to speak cheap custom-made laptops. So, i rather pay 75€ extra for a product i don't want, than 500€ extra for another product i don't want.

You obviously aren't getting it; Micro$ofts monopoly is in the PC market where they sell their operating systems to hardware vendors, who sell the operating systems bundled with the hardware. Since the majority of PC:s are sold new in a store, with Windows on them, there's not much market for rest of the OS manufacturers.

We could prove that M$ doesn't have a monopoly, by pointing out that anyone can write their own OS:s.

Just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that something is a real option.