Monopolies wouldn't exist in the free market?

[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

[ianlippert]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im not up 100% on this issue but its IBM that has the monopoly on the PC architecture. If they chose to only allow microsoft to produce their OS theres really nothing wrong with that. This is an issue of competition between PC and Apple, not microsoft and its free competition. Microsoft in and of itself is a really bad example of monopoly pricing.

[ianlippert]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

And would still be providing cheap quality products to consumers. I dont see the issue.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont really understand why we are having this conversation then. When ACists talk about monopolies we are talking about monopolies that incur extra costs to consumers not strictly market share. IF a company has 100% market share but still provides free market prices (ie low profits over costs) then I dont see the point in calling it a monopoly and I feel that it confuses the issue. This is why I brought up ROI earlier.

If you guys are bringing up monopoly just to counter the ACist point that 'monopolies dont exist in a free market' then we are just having a semantic arguement that is very unproductive.

[tomdemaine]

Exactly. I'm pretty happy with the service I get from Google. Especially considering the price [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DcifrThs]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

And would still be providing cheap quality products to consumers. I dont see the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question by OP: could monopolies exist in a free market?

Answer by me: yes, and it seems to be a trivial question

...discussion, arguing etc.

me saying again this seems to me to be a trivial question...

no issue from what i can see.

Barron

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an unfounded conclusion. How does shutting out other products grow their market share? History is full of examples where open standards beat out closed standards, even when the closed standard was "obviously" better.

PCs vs. Macs would be one such example.

Betamax vs. VHS.

AOL vs. the Internet.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

"by definition?" WHAT definition of monopoly are you using? I haven't seen any reasonable, objective definition under which microsoft is actually a monopoly, so I've got to wonder what you think the word means.

[ 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 ]

Because, even though you say you don't care, you keep bringing up the fact that Microsoft doesn't like to interoperate. If you REALLY don't think this is objectionable, WHY do you keep bringing it up?


[ QUOTE ]
preach. choir. relax.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say one thing, but keep harping on points that counter what you're saying.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

RIGHT! The only reason theyr'e still on top is that they continue to innovate. That means they ARE NOT ENTRENCHED. They're MOVING. THat's like the complete opposite of entrenched. They are NOT ABLE to simply use their dominant position to outcompete - they have to actually fight to stay on top.

And that's what this is all about. Market dominance isn't inhernetly bad. In a free market, it's GOOD. Google isn't extorting anyone, they aren't harming consumers, but they would be a prime target for antitrust given the bizzare definitions of monopoly that some people use, and given just a couple of politically-connected competitors looking for a quick way to hobble the competition.

Oh, wait, they already HAVE BEEN targeted by antitrust investigations:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=google%20antitrust

[ QUOTE ]
..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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus, are you serious? How could they possibly be MORE vulnerable than they are with zero-cost customer switching?

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

So what? It doesn't matter if they are an "industry standard" if the cost of switching to a new standard is zero. There are very few network effects here. even things like google docs and gmail that have some "stickiness" (slightly bastardized use of that word) to them are commodity applications, with the stickiness being google's backend storage.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. It takes a marginally better one. Because the cost of switching is ZERO. And innovation here is rapid, so you don't get any time to rest on your laurels.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im not up 100% on this issue but its IBM that has the monopoly on the PC architecture. If they chose to only allow microsoft to produce their OS theres really nothing wrong with that. This is an issue of competition between PC and Apple, not microsoft and its free competition. Microsoft in and of itself is a really bad example of monopoly pricing.

[/ QUOTE ]

IBM has nothing to do with PC architecture any more. Many companies cloned IBM's designs way back, but even way back then, many companies were doing their own designs. Compaq even beat IBM to market with the first 386 system; after that, it was widely acknowleged in the industry that IBM was no longer even the trendsetter, much less any sort of monopoly holder.

[pvn]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

And would still be providing cheap quality products to consumers. I dont see the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question by OP: could monopolies exist in a free market?

Answer by me: yes, and it seems to be a trivial question

[/ QUOTE ]

What is a monopoly?

Simple question.