Is Microsoft Still a Monopoly?

Microsoft Windows still dominates the desktop. But in many other areas, including Web servers and supercomputing, Microsoft is just one player among many, and often a weak player at that. On the gaming side, despite the latest xBox getting all kinds of media buzz as "the" console to buy, Sony's Playstation outsells the xBox at least two to one, and many analysts expect Sony to widen that gap even more when Playstation 3 comes out in the Spring of 2006. On the Internet, MSN and MSN Search are so far behind AOL and Google that it isn't funny. And even on the desktop, Linux keeps getting stronger, while Mac OS X is commonly accepted as more reliable, secure, and user-oriented than Windows. So why do we keep saying Microsoft is a monopoly? Microsoft (Slowly) Moves Away from Monopolistic Behavior

If a major IT user tells a Microsoft salesperson that he or she is thinking about switching to Linux, Microsoft will usually come back with a cut-price offer, something the company never used to do. Microsoft also now sells something called Windows Starter Edition in some parts of the world -- supposedly for as low as $37 or $38 (US) in Thailand, including a basic version of Microsoft Office. In other words, Microsoft is starting to compete on price, which is not monopoly-style behavior.

This does not mean Microsoft has suddenly adopted a "let's all love one another" attitude.I believe Microsoft is getting more concerned about interoperability not out of goodness, but because of market pressure. But in the long run, as long as Microsoft stops treating every other operating system and file format as some sort of devilspawn, life is a little easier for those of us who would rather not use their products, and that's what really matters.

Microsoft Explorer No Longer Rules the Online World

A majority of desktop computer users may still run Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, but it no longer has 95% market share. In a 2002 book, and again last year in an online article, I warned Web designers not to make IE-only sites, just as in the (distant) past I'd warned them not to make Netscape-only sites. Some listened. Some didn't.

Firefox adoption may have slowed in 2005, but it certainly hasn't stopped. Opera has become enough of a force that we hear rumors about first Google, then Microsoft, buying it. In any case, whether MSIE is currently running on 90% of all desktops or on only 70% (as a few surveys indicate), it is becoming less popular every month. Now Microsoft has decided that Explorer is no longer fit for Mac users, so its market share will drop even more. Sure, there's a new version of Explorer coming out, but it isn't going to help the millions of "legacy" Windows users who don't want to buy XP. If they want modern browser functionality, they must switch to Firefox, Opera or another non-Microsoft browser.

'The Network is the Computer'

I don't think this is quite true today, if by "the network" we're talking about applications delivered over the Internet instead of over well-maintained LANs. Back in October I explained why I don't think Internet-delivered applications are quite "there" yet. More recently, Salesforce.com had an outage that angered many of its (claimed) 350,000 subscribers. Worse, ZDNet blogger Phil Wainewright pointed out that Salesforce.com compounded the problem, and possibly made users leery of all Internet-delivered applications' claims of "99.9% reliability," by poor communication with its users.

Most of the Web 2.0 (and even Web 3.0) stuff that's getting so much hype these days is not OS-dependent. You can run things like Google Maps on Linux, Mac OS, Unix, and even Windows, using any standards-compliant browser you choose.

Even Microsoft is trying to get into the Web 2.0 game. I got a press release from their PR people that included this sentence:"And if you enjoy taking a drive to check out your neighborhood’s Christmas lights visit this great Windows Live Local developer application at http://msnsearch101.com/searchmap."

I found this online utility's behavior strange and primitive, not nearly up to the standards of Google Maps and some of the mashups based on it. "Ah," I thought, "that's probably because I'm trying to use it with Linux and Mozilla." So I turned to my one Windows (XP) computer and checked the site with both Firefox and Explorer. For some reason the map background didn't load at all in Firefox, on Windows, and its behavior in Explorer, on Windows, was just as clunky as it was in Mozilla, on Linux.

If this is supposed to be a sample of what Windows Live Local can do, I don't think Microsoft is headed for any kind of monopoly -- or even much market share -- in the online map business. Not only that, it makes me wonder how good their promised Microsoft® Office Live is going to be. If even a quarter of the rumors we've heard about Google and Sun joining up to produce a Webified version of OpenOffice.org are true, I suspect Microsoft is going to be a distant also-ran in the (inevitable) Internet-delivered office software business, too.

Hundreds of Thousands of Competitors

It's fun to play the "Google is cooler than Microsoft" game and talk about how Google, not Microsoft, has become the hot place for top-end programmers to work if they want to make their mark on the world, but even Google can only hire a tiny fraction of the world's software development talent. There are over 100,000 Open Source projects on SourceForge.net (which is owned by the same company that owns Slashdot), and SourceForge.net is but one of many Open Source and Free Software hosting services out there. There are literally millions of programmers working on Free and Open Source Software, plus countless others working on personal proprietary projects.

We've all heard -- probably too many times -- the old saw, "If you have enough monkeys banging randomly on typewriters, they will eventually type the works of William Shakespeare." This may or may not be true. But it is certain that if you put millions of programmers in front of millions of computers and let them do whatever they want, some of them will turn out brilliant, world-changing work. Even if 999 out of 1000 of our putative programmers work on established projects or never finish what they start, that still gives us thousands of potential world-changing software projects, most of which won't be developed by Google (or Microsoft) employees.

I've been to India, and the smartest programmers I met there weren't working for outsourcing mills but worked for themselves. I'm sure there are plenty of self-employed programmers in China, Brazil, Kenya, and almost everywhere else on this planet, too, and there are certainly plenty of them here in the United States. And, all over the world, millions of programmers have day jobs doing routine work for corporate employers to put food on the table, and do their "real work" at home, at night.

Neither you nor I nor Google's management nor Microsoft's management know what might be going on right now in the mind of a brilliant Saudi woman with a computer science degree who can't work outside her home because her country's laws keep her from mixing with men who aren't related to her. There may be a poorly-dressed young man coding furiously in a Beijing Internet cafe, while you read this article, whose new operating system will make all current ones obsolete -- and you may not learn about his work until it shows up in a Chinese-made $100 laptop computer.

When Bill Gates and his friends started Microsoft, it was one of very few companies that sold nothing but personal computer software, and the others were so small that Microsoft managed to buy most of its competitors -- or at least license their best work or hire away their best programmers. Back then, programmers were scarce and expensive, as were the computers they programmed on. Now there are both programmers and computers all over the world, linked together by the Internet. The Internet not only helps programmers collaborate with each other across geographic boundaries, but allows them to distribute their work without shipping physical products.

The only reason to have a software company's employees work in an office these days is control, both of employees' schedules and of what they work on. Self-motivated geniuses have no need of offices and may even resent being asked to show up at one on a regular schedule, which means that many of the world's best programmers will never work for Google, Microsoft or any other company. Instead, they'll start their own software companies or, in many cases, Open Source-based consultancies.

So Microsoft doesn't face a few dozen competitors, as it did in the 1980s, but hundreds of thousands. And these competitors are spread all over the world. This kind of competition is a lot harder to co-opt, buy out or fend off than competition from a single company, a la Netscape, or even from a group of companies as substantial as IBM, Sun, Oracle, and their computing industry peers.

Competition has Forced Microsoft to Improve its Products

Microsoft may no longer be able to hire all the top programmers it wants, but there is already plenty of talent among its 60,000-plus employees, and they have done some excellent work in recent years. Windows XP is immeasurably better and more stable than Windows ME or Windows 98. The next generation of Explorer will have many of the modern browser features that those of us who use Firefox or Opera have gotten accustomed to. Microsoft Office may not have some of the features OpenOffice.org users take for granted, like a built-in graphics utility, the ability to act as a front end for industrial-strength free databases like MySQL, and the ability to save your work in 30+ different Open and proprietary formats, including PDF. But Microsoft Office today is a lot better than it was 10 years ago, and the next version may even use a sort-of free XML file format that may not be as open and standardized as the OASIS Open Document Format used by OpenOffice.org, but is less closed and less proprietary than previous Microsoft file formats.

A true monopoly would not need to make these improvements in its products. It would give you whatever it wanted, at whatever price it wanted to charge. It would not be selling cut-down versions of its products at cut-rate prices in developing countries -- many of which, you may note, are rapidly turning into "software developing" countries.

Without Linux, combined with Apple's move to BSD-based Mac OS X, I doubt that Microsoft would have put much development effort into Windows. They sure didn't do much with Explorer between the time they crushed Netscape and the time when Firefox started making a big splash, did they?

The U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft wasn't about the company being a monopoly (which courts agreed that it was at the time), but about illegal misuse of that monopoly. That case was settled in a way that left Microsoft essentially unharmed, but with a judge overseeing its actions for five years, a time period that is going to end before long.

The Age of the Software Monopoly is Over

IBM tried to create a monopoly in the business desktop computer business, but failed to hold onto its market-leading position as dozens, then hundreds, and later thousands of competitors made better/faster/cheaper PCs. Even today, while Dell is the world's largest personal computer vendor, if you add up all the market share reports from major computer vendors in this C|Net article, you'll see that they account for around 60% -- not 100% -- of total sales, with smaller companies getting the rest. (And some of those companies are *really* small, like the one-man Bradenton, Florida, shop where my sailing buddy Gene just bought his latest home computer.)

The personal computer hardware business has become totally demonopolized, decentralized, democratized, and internationalized. If you have enough mechanical ability to assemble components neatly (and enough sales ability to get people to buy what you make), you can get into it yourself with a very small investment, just as Michael Dell started out reselling computer components and assembling systems in his college dorm room.

Starting a software business takes even less investment. If you're a competent programmer -- or you have a friend who is a competent programmer and you are a whiz-bang marketing person -- you have everything you need to get going. You can either produce and sell proprietary software or customize (and probably install and maintain) Free or Open Source Software for corporate clients. If the Internet is your primary sales and distribution channel, you don't need to live and work in expensive IT business hotbeds like Silicon Valley or Boston, either: JBoss, for example, is based in Atlanta, Georgia; and Digium, the company behind Asterisk, is in Huntsville, Alabama.

There are software businesses springing up all over the place. Most of them are tiny, and few of them will ever get big enough that analyst firms like Gartner or IDC will track their market share (or even notice them). But there are so many of them being started that, in aggregate, they are becoming a more significant market force than any single big software company, even Microsoft.

This doesn't mean Microsoft will be replaced next year by 100,000 startups. The company will still be around, it will still get lots of press, and -- assuming it embraces (but does not keep trying to extend and extinguish) Open Standards -- it will still be a powerful force in the software world.

But no matter what Microsoft does, it will never have a software monopoly again. Nor will any other company. The barriers to entry in the software business have become too low for that to happen, and too many skilled software developers are learning that they can earn at least as much working for themselves as they would by working for big software companies.

Small is Beautiful was a fine book title in 1973. Today, it's a fine description of the software industry's future.

-----

Have something important to say to the Slashdot community? Email roblimo at slashdot period org the complete article (or an article proposal).

Comments

A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[gee_unix]

Microsoft was declared a monopoly by a court in 1999, but I'm not sure if they ever fit the dictionary definition of monopoly as the submitter seems to now be holding them to:

Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

Did Microsoft ever have exclusive control of the desktop? Sure, they had a vast majority, but exclusive control? To my knowledge, nothing ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or running IBM's OS/2 or Linux or any other number of alternatives. I think we can all agree that Microsoft engaged in cut-throat tactics and was legally declared a monopolist but I don't think they exactly fit the dictionary definition.

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[Ucklak]

Name a tier 1 Computer assembler/maker that doesn't pay a microsoft tax.

Last I heard, you still can't get a Dell desktop without windows and NOT pay the microsoft tax that is built into the price.

In addition to that, what software company (Like Great Plains, People Soft, SAS) is going to distribute programming resources writing for other OS's that didn't have the 'exclusive' manufacturer tax.

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[danielk1982]

And even if Microsoft was a monopoly in 1999. Is it still in 2006? It is so easy to move away from Windows right now. About the only reason for staying is gaming which matters to some but has no impact on others (me for example). In the last few years, Linux has made strides in usability. Pretty much every major distribution is easy to install and comes with 90% of the functionality most people need out of a computer (Internet, Email, Word Processing).

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[MightyMartian]

I don't know anybody who accused Microsoft of monopolistic practices of having XBoxes in mind. Microsoft's monopoly is the desktop, and while Internet Explorer has eroded to some degree, and while Macs and Linux (with distros like Ubuntu) is fast becoming alternatives, Microsoft is still the 800 lb gorilla. So yes, Microsoft is still a monopoly, though one that, due more to Google and OpenOffice more than anything else, seems somewhat more vulnerable.

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[Omnifarious]

A monopoly is not defined legally as being exclusive. It's a vast preponderance of the market share. More than 80% or 90% or something like that. In this respect, Microsoft is still a monopoly in several different markets.

Being a monopoly is not wrong. Abusing your monopoly position to shut competitors out of a market (even one in which you don't have a monopoly) is. Microsoft was convicted on several counts of this, and then for some strange reason was let off with a light slap on the wrist, despite having previously agreed to a consent decree regarding some of those behaviors.

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[SeventyBang]

I think think to a certain extent, they still are, but fill feel the warm breath.

Microsoft owned the deskstop and has [undeniably] and it's now the 3rd most (and most profitable) element in their portfolio.

Microsoft's long-term strategy, however, is going to be their downfall.

Microsoft has grown from the desktops and are attempting to achieve the next level (www|Internet). Their long-term plan(s) seem to be rather nebulous. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Balmer et al make references to Google in oe way and one way only: as a search engine That's all they want the rest of the world
If you look at something like Google, they didn't grow up, they started online and are growing|spreading about it. It's like an oil slick. They're spreading wider and widers, and helping to organize information. Not just my information, your information, or the information of someone else. They just want to accumulate information and let you figure out how it's best for you to make the best use of it. In the meantime, Microsoft is feeling someone's breath on their necks but are afraid to turn & look because that's when your forward sensors aren't available and you hit a tree.

There's one thing Microsoft is afraid of: not being #1 - no longer the trail setter, but the trend follower.

And one of my favoriate quotes:

"Success is a lousy teacher. It makes smart people think they can't lose." William Henry Gates 3rd

p.s.

A better question about money is what Ballmer does with his life. We know what Gates & Allen have done, and their actions are news worthy, but what about the guy who looks ready to pop a vein when the cameras are on him?

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[kb]

Name a tier 1 Computer assembler/maker that doesn't pay a microsoft tax.

Apple? ;)

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[Liam Slider]

Windows is a critical part of a computer.

No, an OS is. A specific one isn't.

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[morgan_greywolf]

Windows is a critical part of a computer. If you don't want that part, go build your own computer. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't astroturfing or trolling ... The operating system is a critical part of a computer and it doesn't have to be Windows. Your Maxtor analogy isn't quite correct. An HDD is an HDD -- it performs the same function regardless of maker. Some are faster, some are slower, some are SCSI, some are IDE, but most HDD manufacturers make all types. Operating systems, OTOH, are very different. While the choice of HDD isn't likely to limit your choices much as to what sort of applications you can use on your computer, the choice of operating systems is. Unless you're insane, you probably don't want to run an Internet Web server on Windows -- just as if your primary application is a gaming box, choosing Linux or MacOS X is likely to limit your choices as to what sort of games you can run. Just as Dell and other manufacturers offer a variety of choices of monitors, HDD types and sizes, keyboards, mice, and processors -- all critical parts of the computer -- they should offer a choice of operating systems and application suites. But they don't. And the fact that they don't means there is a monopoly, at least on the Desktop. Roblimo's observations are evidence of Microsoft's monopoly coming to an end, but it hasn't yet. Not by a long shot. And that's why people refer to it as an 'operating system' tax.

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[_Sprocket_]

If Dell decides to make a run of systems with AMD processors, they don't continue to pay Intel for each AMD-based system shipped. This is different from their deal with Microsoft the Windows product where each unit shipped, with or without Windows, invovles a charge for Windows.

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[BasilBrush]

The reason it's called a tax is that the tier 1 manufacturers deal with Microsoft is to pay for every machine they produce, whether or not it actually ships with Windows. Thus, if you can actually find any PCs pre-loaded with Linux from Dell etc. they are no cheaper than the same machine with Windows. But they would be if Microsoft wasn't leveraging their monopoly status.

Re:A monopoly by the dictionary definition?

[InvalidError]

Yes, OEMs get their Windows cheap. XP Home for bulk OEMs is somewhere around $50 (closer to $40 for major OEMs) instead of around $100 for small (mom&pop shop) quantities and $200 for retail. IIRC, XP Pro is only slightly more expensive for bulk OEMs and around $150 for small OEMs.

The $40 license saved on an Open PC barely covers the parts+labour required to re-image or swap the HDD from bulk-produced and imaged configurations. Dell has thin margins on standard configurations, it comes as no surprise that they are making customers pay for the privilege of substituting parts.

As for the actual article, Microsoft might not look as much like a monopoly when looked at globally but it still undeniably is a practical monopoly as far as desktop OSes are concerned. TFA simply got distracted by Microsoft diversification efforts and attempts at gnawing a chunk off others' quasi-monopolies.

How about...

[seanvaandering]

How about getting rid of the Microsoft Tax on new computers as well? They may not be a monopoly anymore but why should I pay more for a computer that I don't want Windows installed on?

It is not about market share!!!

[stonebeat.org]

Monopoly is NOT about market share. If a product has a large market share it doesn't mean it is monopolizing the market. Monopolizing refers to the manner of conducting business which hurts other competitors.

Just Try

[christurkel]

To get a non MS operating system from any major computer vendor and see a monopoly in action.

Try running a business without Microsoft

[Gerald]

It's damn hard to run a 50-person business without Microsoft software. It's next to impossible to do so when you scale up to 100, 1000, or 10,000 people. This alone makes them a de facto monopoly as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Try running a business without Microsoft

[walt-sjc]

Coming up with examples like RedHat, Apple, and Sun evoke a huge DUH. Name a major corporation that isn't in the OS business. While you will find that the majority of large businesses run major systems (such as Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc.) on Sun, HP or IBM hardware and OS's, the desktops are Windows. Why? Because the client software for these applications are Windows centric. Even in cases where they are Web applications, they want ActiveX controls and such for full functionality. They tightly integrate with Word and Excel. This is true even for the companies that write their own software. Windows gives them a single platform to support.

Is it possible to run a business without MS software? Sure, but it isn't easy. In fact, it's really fricking hard. Frankly, the small shops are much easier than the large shops due to the OS requirements on the client workstation that enterprise apps have.

Regardless of what you may believe, MS has a VERY firm monopoly grip on the business / government and home markets. Noise that some businesses / governments make about open standards and moving to opensource are nearly universally just attempts to negotiate better licensing deals from MS.

The dictionary def is real-world meaningless

[Flying pig]

A real-world monopolist does not have or need 100% of the market. He needs enough market share to be able to distort the free market in a way that adversely affects competitors. The reason, of course, is that society is not homogeneous and so a high market share plus other technological factors creates local monopolies in one market or section of a market. Even I know this, and I'm not an economist. But then, dictionary editors seem to be even less aware or knowledgeable.

Microsoft is a de facto monopolist in certain markets, including the consumer desktop and many corporates. The monopoly has been handed them on a plate and they have, of course, taken it. In 1988 when I bought my first Mac, there was a bewildering array of word processors. Now there is only one, and Open Office has to copy or die. The browser share of IE is effectively 100% among non-technical users - a de facto monopoly. The market share of Windows among non-technical/specialist consumers is as near 100% as makes no odds.

At the root of this is the simple fact that computers are too difficult for Joe Public and are likely always to be so. Enough people kind of understand how Windows and its apps works that Joe Public can kind of keep things working most of the time. There is simply not the expertise out there to support multiple platforms all with significant market shares. And so long as Microsoft can keep technically competent people busy with release updates, virus checking, feature bloat resulting in user support calls for things they do not really need to do at all...it will continue.

So the answer to your post is that yes, lots of things - lack of knowledge, fear of the unknown, lack of support, existential doubt - stopped many people from buying alternatives and those things are not going away any time soon.

Re:The dictionary def is real-world meaningless

[JabberWokky]

Well stated. That's pretty much the point of most replies and what renders this entire article pointless. The person has laid out a very reasonable argument not to call Microsoft a monopoly while completely ignoring the carefully defined legal definition -- which is what most educated people generally are referring to when speaking of Microsoft as a monoply. The Wall Street Journal isn't using the street definition of monopoly when they discuss Microsoft, they are using the definition that the courts used when deciding that the term can be applied to Microsoft with all the ramifications inherent in that act.

As for street usage of the term, I have no doubt that there are 15 year old kids ranting about Micro$oft being an Evil Monopoly in the same way they glamorize Che Guevara on a tee shirt. There are idiots and children discussing all sorts of things they don't really understand. At least the children have a chance to grow up and understand the actual definition of the term 'monopoly' as it was applied to Microsoft -- a specific legal definition that limits their actions in a managed capitalist economy.

--
Evan

The summary makes sense

[Infonaut]

The summary "why do we keep calling Microsoft a monopoly?" is silly.

Not really. If you read the article, Rob's points are pretty clear. The point isn't whether Microsoft is filled with goodness and light, but whether they actually exert monopoly power now, in December, 2005. I'm no Microsoft fan, but I have to agree with Rob. There is increasing competition in operating systems, Microsoft has been forced to change its pricing in response to the rise of Linux, and Office is facing new threats that are small right now but could be huge in a year or two.

Microsoft has had a difficult time leveraging its dominance in operating systems and office software. Look at the long uphill battle they've had with the XBox. Their record with media ventures is mixed at best. They're locked in a heated struggle with Google, and in the mean time Yahoo! is stealing a march on MSN.

Rob's piece goes against the conventional Slashdot wisdom, but it makes sense. Many Slashdotters have been arguing for some time that Microsoft reached its peak and is on a downhill slide. MS can't exert monopoly power and simultaneously be losing its grip on the industry. The times are changing. Now the question is, if Microsoft really no longer calls the shots in the industry, what does that mean for the other players like Red Hat, IBM, Apple, and Dell?

p.s. - Would any piece stating Microsoft is no longer a monopoly incur a "that was written by a Microsoft attorney" slur?

p.p.s. - What does Fox News have to do with any of this?

...if CURLING is an OLYMPIC SPORT....

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Then YES. Microsoft is a fucking monopoly.

Microsoft owns the Desktop computing market.

They've never had a monopoly anywhere else. If you were an enterprise user, you DID have alternatives to NT and IIS. It wasn't always Linux, but there were alternatives.

However, at any point between Windows 95 and XP did you EVER have the option of buying a PC that was dual boot linux/beOS/AtheOS/*BSD/INsert OS of choice AND Windows? No? Guess what then? That's a monopoly.

The question is loaded and inaccurate

[spisska]

Micorsoft is a monopoly -- they have been found so in both the EU and US. They still have a stranglehold on corporate and home desktops, and produce the only office productivity software that you can use in a lot of business environments.

There is nothing wrong or illegal about being a monopoly. If you make the best baskets and control 90 percent of the market, then good on you. What is illegal is using your dominant position in one market to abuse another. If, for example, you colluded with vendors to make sure your baskets were the only ones buyers saw, or forced vendors to pay you even for every basket sold that wasn't yours, or that (for some inexplicable reason) your baskets could only hold fruit from your orchards -- that would be illegal.

So the question more properly is: Is Microsoft sill abusing its monopoly position?

The answer would appear to be that they're trying awfully hard to. Rather than giving existing security vendors more transparent help, they're building (buying) their own AV and security units. We'll see what it looks like in Longvista I guess, but it sure sound to me like using their OS monopoly to leverage a position in the security market.

Sounds kinda like what they did with WMP -- not because they care about the player but because they want to own the format. More leveraging the OS to squeeze into another market. Feel free to use whatever media player you want, but you'll need their proprietary codec from WMP (free download!) to play all the Super Media Content (TM) (which will, of course, require DRM licenses and other license fees from producers who use the format; you'll have paid for them in your Genuine Windows(TM) License). They don't want the player, they want the pipe -- and the OS can help them lock it up.

MS says they will move Office documents to xml to allow for interoperability, but not to the specification that they helped write. They will open the format to a degree slightly less than their customers want and the law requires, and deal will legal consequences as standard operating costs. Same song different decade. Bill don't care as long as those $400/seat licenses keep rolling in,

MS certainly has more competition these days, in every area the tentacles have expanded. However, it still has its original monopoly in PC desktop operating systems (and office productivity software), and is still actively leveraging that position to help itself in other markets.

Re:Applications barrier to entry

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than that there are hardly any apps for it? The findings of fact in United States v. Microsoft based its case largely on an "applications barrier to entry".

Pretty poor case then.

IBM: Charged over $300 for the basic SDK (at a time when MS was giving it to anyone that looked like a developer), and basically treated 3rd party OS/2 development as a special privilege that developers should be grateful for.

Apple: Open with the tools, but quick to pull the rug out from under peoples feet. Apple has a long and continuing history of screwing over all 3rd party support for Mac (any 3rd party [with the exception of the 800lbs gorillas, Microsoft and Adobe] that rises to the rank of minor idol in the cult of Mac is quickly struck down; thou shall have no god but Apple) - hardware developers, software developers, even the dealers (who currently have a class action suit against Apple for multiple ugly tactics used against it's own certified Mac dealers)

Linux: An open and free desktop standard to develop on, all 583 of them. Even today Linux still needs a common, practical windowing API to really get developers and take the desktop. Back in 1999 it was far worse.

Applications barrier to entry? Microsoft can't help it if all it's competition is either incompentent, power mad or disorganized.

Re:A Monopoly can only be created by Gov't

[psykocrime]

Depending on the exact semantics you choose for the definition of 'monopoly' you may be correct. But an interesting corrolary is that our government does work to create artificial monopolies by granting patents. A patent is just a temporary, government assigned monopoly on a limited domain. But in practice, patents help propogate large monopolies by working to favor large, established companies with plenty of resources for filing patents, litigating over patents, defending patent lawsuits, etc.

Software patents are especially bad in this regard, since they tend to be overly broad and abstract. In essense, the USPTO is now allowing one individual to *own* an idea, which is - IMO - ludicrous. Reform (or eliminate) the patent system and let companies compete on real merits (customer service, product quality, support, speed of delivery, whatever) and we would be making a strong step towards eliminating harmful monopolies.

Mod parent up!

[khasim]

Seriously, it seems that we go through this discussion every few months.

At least read the court decision. Microsoft was ruled to have a monopoly in the x86 desktop market.

Not in game consoles.
Not in the server market.
Not in the ISP market.