>Well how do you think they gained that monopoly.
By engaging in anti competitive behavior and buying up the competitors.
>By jumping on a good idea and developing it.
Nope.
>Spending time, money, investing in something that could
>have been a flop (risk).
There's no risk when you lock out your competitors at the source(PC's), and then use your monopoly to kill them off and spread into other markets.
>Why should competition get a piece of the cake when they
>didnt do any of the foundation that is Windows.
It's not about the competition, but about the consumer. Any company exists to make money. If a the company can set the price of a product unilaterally, then it will set the price at the highest possible level, meaning that you and I will pay a hundred times more than we would have to if the free market was working.
>Sony are/was/dunno the number one console on this planet,
>when Microsoft decided to make the XBox did they go to
>Sony and say "Hey, you have a monopoly in the console
>market, you need to give us documentation and all your
>research so we can make better consoles than you".
You are confusing the subjects involved. Equal access does not mean equal control. Microsoft is not being told to hand over it's docs and research, but to reveal the full documentation So that the competitors can have equal access to the OS.
>You think thats fair?
Of course it is! When you have a monopoly in a market, you are not allowed to abuse that monopoly by keeping secrets enabling you to make better products for the OS.
>You realise that if Microsoft decided to withdraw their
>software from the market then the world would be pretty
>screwed.
No, actually that would lead to a new age of innovation, with hundreds of competing products being developed.
>Thats a good idea of how much we actually need Microsoft.
>Suing them and forcing them to hand out technology to
>other companies would basically cripple them in a sense.
It has never been about getting M$ to hand over their technology, but about enabling everyone to compete in the market for Windows applications.
>Id rather have one good copy of Windows then 10 useless
>ones to choose from.
That's how things were in the USSR. Because innovation and development was monopolized by the state, there was no real way to break out and bring a product to market. The result was an incredible wealth of innovation, but a serious lack of research and development that could benefit the consumer.
It's really not about M$, the competitors, innovation or even good or bad products. It's about maintaining a functioning free market, and that can only be done by ensuring competition.
Andy
By engaging in anti competitive behavior and buying up the competitors.
>By jumping on a good idea and developing it.
Nope.
>Spending time, money, investing in something that could
>have been a flop (risk).
There's no risk when you lock out your competitors at the source(PC's), and then use your monopoly to kill them off and spread into other markets.
>Why should competition get a piece of the cake when they
>didnt do any of the foundation that is Windows.
It's not about the competition, but about the consumer. Any company exists to make money. If a the company can set the price of a product unilaterally, then it will set the price at the highest possible level, meaning that you and I will pay a hundred times more than we would have to if the free market was working.
>Sony are/was/dunno the number one console on this planet,
>when Microsoft decided to make the XBox did they go to
>Sony and say "Hey, you have a monopoly in the console
>market, you need to give us documentation and all your
>research so we can make better consoles than you".
You are confusing the subjects involved. Equal access does not mean equal control. Microsoft is not being told to hand over it's docs and research, but to reveal the full documentation So that the competitors can have equal access to the OS.
>You think thats fair?
Of course it is! When you have a monopoly in a market, you are not allowed to abuse that monopoly by keeping secrets enabling you to make better products for the OS.
>You realise that if Microsoft decided to withdraw their
>software from the market then the world would be pretty
>screwed.
No, actually that would lead to a new age of innovation, with hundreds of competing products being developed.
>Thats a good idea of how much we actually need Microsoft.
>Suing them and forcing them to hand out technology to
>other companies would basically cripple them in a sense.
It has never been about getting M$ to hand over their technology, but about enabling everyone to compete in the market for Windows applications.
>Id rather have one good copy of Windows then 10 useless
>ones to choose from.
That's how things were in the USSR. Because innovation and development was monopolized by the state, there was no real way to break out and bring a product to market. The result was an incredible wealth of innovation, but a serious lack of research and development that could benefit the consumer.
It's really not about M$, the competitors, innovation or even good or bad products. It's about maintaining a functioning free market, and that can only be done by ensuring competition.
Andy