[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
those cases may not have shown large decreases in market share, but what they don't show is what MSFT could have done had there been no regulators. they had to walk on eggshells so to speak so as to not invite further regulation. they could have locked other software programs out purposefully etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

SO WHAT?

Why is this so awful? Why should MS be *compelled* to make their products work with other products?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, obviously we've touched on a pvn nerve here or something. dude, i'm on your freaking side!!!

i don't think they should be regulated. MSFT shouldn't be compelled to make their product work with a competitors product.

my only point is that IF the regulators weren't there MSFT would be a bigger monopoly than it is now.

and that is one example.

more generally i believe monopolies would definitely be able to exist in a free market. i don't see how a free market would prevent a monopoly by definition.

[ QUOTE ]



My cell phone comes with a proprietary battery. The phone manufacturer *could* have used a standard battery for basically zero cost difference. But they chose this nonstandard battery. Have they done something "evil" here? BTW, third party battery makers can still make batteries for this phone, but it requires them to retool their manufacturing lines, which is expensive.

My BrandX printer uses BrandX ink cartridges. BrandX cartridges are different than BrandY and BrandZ cartridges, which happen to fit in either brandY or brandZ printers. Is something bad going on here?

[/ QUOTE ]

um, no. what gave you the idea that something bad was going on?

[ QUOTE ]


My iPod only works (optimally) with iTunes and the iTunes Music Store. Music I buy from Napster doesn't play as well. Evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

only thing more evil is skelator. the zune is clearly he-man coming to rescue the masses lol.

wtf are you talking about? why is evil/bad etc. the language you choose here? are you even reading my posts or do you just feel the need to babble on here.

preach. choir. relax.

[ QUOTE ]


My MacOS software only works on special hardware manufactured by Apple. They don't license the boot roms that MacOS requires to function. Objectionable?

[ QUOTE ]
but, still, out of those companies, i'd think MSFT would eventually overtake most if not all of those competitors in some business sectors. google isnow absolutely entrenched and probably the hardest to overcome...but who knows what would come out without anybody telling MSFT (or other companies) that they can't preculde competitors from their OS or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Google is "entrenched"? You've got to be kidding me. Google is so vulnerable it's ridiculous. All you have to do is type "newsearchengine.com" instead of "google.com". There is literally zero cost to consumers for switching. How do you think google got where it is in the first place, in the face of what was then then "entrenched" market dominators (Yahoo, AltaVista). AltaVista was, for quite a while, THE search engine. And it was backed by big money (DEC, Compaq, CMGI). And as soon as something a little bit better came along, poof, it was in the toilet. Now most people don't even know what it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, but for how long was it entrenched? how much share did it actually have? did it get its name in the dictionary?

i'd say google is fairly powerful now and quite entrenched. citing previously entrenched companies that failed when something better came along doesn't change the powerful spot google now has in the world. their seach engine is ubiquitous and they are continually innovating and expanding.

it is possible that something better could come along. but at this moment, i'd say google is pretty damn entrenched in the minds of internet users...

..just because it is EASY and COSTLESS for consumers to change providers of a service that google provides doesn't necessarily mean that google is as vulnerable as you seem to think it is. it has become the industry standard during a maturation phase. altavista was big when the relative proportions of internet usage were way smaller than they are now and the maturation of the internet itself hadn't even begun yet.

[ QUOTE ]


The barriers to entry here are *ridiculously* low. Google got to the top of the heap with relatively little money, just a product that was good enough to be a significant improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, but when you reach that zenith, it takes a massively impactful product/service to unseat you.

MSFT has a dominant standard in the world of software (office) and operating systems (windows). its vulnerability is its ability to innovate further and grow continually (emerging markets are the best bet now as a higher proportion are getting "plugged in.")

google is a household name in every single household that uses the internet and many that don't even have a computer. that kind of dominance in name recognition is something altavista et.al. never dreamed of having. it is offering a wider suite of services and is aware of the low barriers to entry.

on that note, just because there are low costs to entry doesn't mean there are low barriers to entry btw. the barriers i think here are quite high. your search engine not only has to be better than google's, but it also has to get recognized as being such. AND you have to have your advertising system work better than google's.

i just don't see two vulnerable companies here. you seem to see two companies teetering on the edge of obscurity for some reason.

Barron