LAZINESS, Not Corporate Greed, Breeds Monopolies

Published on September 25, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Misc

In the never ending debate, "Is Microsoft a monopoly" that resurfaced on another thread (in forums, the only surer topic to reappear than Godwin's Law is the Microsoft monopoly argument), it was pointed out that at the time of the antitrust suit, Microsoft had several thousand competitors.

Now, first of all, let me say that most Americans have no idea what a monopoly is and why Microsoft is not one. Because that's not the topic of this article, however, I'm going to state that point and move on.

The problem that people seem to fail to recognize is that it is laziness, not corporate greed, that breeds monopolies.

Allow me to explain.

The average American doesn't want to expend any more effort than necessary to obtain results. The remote control is a clear example of this. Rather than get our butts off the couch to change the channel, we rely on the remote control to change it, freaking out when the batteries run down.

The truth is, even now, when critics of Microsoft claim the company is a monopoly, there are other options. Yes, it's true that MOST boxed computers come with Windows bundled, but it is not true that any of them are reliant on Windows to continue running. You can remove Windows, and install any one of a number of Linux based distros all the way from the most basic to distros with a shiny interface just as good as Microsoft's.

The argument against this, of course, is that with Linux you often have to find drivers for your hardware. While this is problematic, it's not impossible. Many newer versions of Linux support many different hardware options, and even peripherals often have Linux drivers.

There's also the issue of programs. Many programs are not compatible with Linux, and some run poorly on emulators such as WINE. The average end user doesn't want to have to filter through their options until they find what works. They want to buy something, plug it in, and have immediate functionality.

This is WalMart mentality. Whatever I can buy cheapest, at the lowest price. And it, not Bill Gates, is what is wrong with America.

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on Sep 26, 2007

Really? How much do Microsoft charge Dell for the OS? How much do and did other OS vendors charge?

The question was consumers, not the supply chain. I do not have that information, and it is not relevant to the question.

How is the customer harmed?

By paying more for a product than the market would indicate in a more competitive market. Again, I am not saying that Windows is the only alternative. I never have. But then standard oil was not a monopoly in the dictionary sense of the word either. They did not restrict supplies either, and there were still alternatives. What they did do was set the price higher than it would have been had Standard not controlled the market. The injury in these cases (and again I am simply stating the legal definitions and laws, not the dictionary ones) is that the consumer is being charged an inflated price due not to market forces, but due to one companies arbitrary pricing structures.

Dr Guy

on Sep 26, 2007

I have seen DR's attempts to write a GUI and I have seen Microsoft's. I cannot see how the customer was harmed by Microsoft winning. DR's GEM (on x86) was horrible and restrictted to 640 KB of memory at a time when Windows already used XMS and offered 16 MB.

(Sorry, it posted before I was ready). To my knowledge, DR never did try a GUI. They had an excellent DOS back in the 90s. Far superior to MS DOS. Microsoft wrote into the code of windows 3.x (which if you remember ran on DOS) to prevent it from running on DR DOS. For no other reason than to stop DR DOS from gaining market share (it worked).

It is called vertical intergration for a reason. At the time, Windows was just a shell, and Microsoft was cutting out competitors other software (forget GEM) when there was no reason to other than monopoly.

Look at it this way. I know you are heavily involved in computers. But let's take Power. Suppose your power company decided to patent a new power supply that only did 330 current instead of the standard 220. The power company then decided that instead of sending 220 down the line, it would only send 330. That would drive all other power supplies (not sources) out of business real fast and restrict competition. That is vertical integration used to gain a monopoly, and like it or not, it is illegal in almost all countries for that very reason. Microsoft did it, and they were nailed and forced to pay for doing it (by the time the case was finally settled, the award was a paltry $347m and Microsoft paid that out of petty cash to I think Corel).

And again the injury is always money. If The power company charged $100 for their power supplies, but others could charge $50, and then the power company did their deed, the consumers would be out $50 for every electical device they bought. It would add up quickly.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!