4 ms·

I disagree. I think the monopolist (or bigger company in general) has more options, regardless whether or not it's government backed. At the very least, bigger

I disagree. I think the monopolist (or bigger company in general) has more options, regardless whether or not it's government backed. At the very least, bigger companies can afford to play chicken game with safer margin of error. Having more options translates to having more power in keeping the market position. Just one example out of many. Microsoft preinstalls Windows on PCs. I can't get e.g. a Linux one because every time someone tries to sell them, Microsoft will signal to the seller that they will have to change the terms of contract with them. Since no seller can really afford to lose MS, they will always cave in and forget about the Linux deal. This is how "the market" actually works in the real world. > Competition still exists even without actual competitors, since the potential for competitors to enter the market is ever present, should the monopolist abuse the consumer. I am sorry, I don't buy this, this is wishful thinking. You're basically telling me that someone abusive will not abuse even if he knows there is nothing to stop them, just because there is always a possibility that something to stop them will suddenly appear out of thin air?

mariodiana 11y ago
What would stop Dell, HP, and Lenovo from banding together and telling Microsoft that they will be installing Linux? Two things. First, there is no appreciable demand in the consumer market for Linux, and there very likely will never be. I don't mean to antagonize Linux aficionados, but that's not the fault of the Evil Empire of Redmond. So, it's simply not worth it for these companies to bother. It's not a "market failure" because a fringe group of consumers are inconvenienced. You make this sound like an orphan drug. Second, and more importantly, Dell, HP, and Lenovo are not free to combine and stand up to Microsoft. U.S. antitrust laws would shut that down immediately. In other words, government interference is contributing to this problem you're lamenting. That's not a "market failure" either -- it's a political failure. As to established, profitable companies "having more options," as you say; it's just as easily said that smaller, newer companies are more nimble and able to spot undeveloped, unsatisfied niches in consumer demand. That's called competition -- sometimes the puncher wins, and sometimes the boxer wins. And, finally, I never said that no one would ever try to "abuse" the consumer. What I'm saying is that there is always the threat of competition acting as a corrective.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  I have seen it in market for Asus EEE PCs with Linux. There was a demand here in Czech Republic but Asus was not interested (it wanted to push Windows to the market). It had nothing to do with Linux being not in demand (the laptops were underpowered to run latest Windows), nor with U.S. antitrust laws; and everything with the fact that Asus preinstalls Windows on its other laptops. You simply don't want to believe these things happen. But if you pay attention, you can see lot of incidental evidence that it happens. But there is always plausible deniability, it's never done too overtly. > I never said that no one would ever try to "abuse" the consumer Companies are selected for abusive behavior by evolutionary pressure. No person or company is really interested in being in competition (if survival really depends on it); everybody runs as fast (and as creatively) as they can to avoid it and reap maximal profits. It can be shown on rather simple multi-agent simulations. I am not sure what leads so many people to conclusion that companies like MS or HP - which can build freaking computers and operating systems - cannot figure out a simple fact that in some cases acting together against consumer interests will in fact increase their profits.
  - mariodiana 11y ago
    The entire population of the Czech Republic is something like 10 million people, just a couple of million more than that of New York City. I'm skeptical as to just how much demand that adds up to in the context of Asus's worldwide market.

mariodiana 11y ago

What would stop Dell, HP, and Lenovo from banding together and telling Microsoft that they will be installing Linux? Two things. First, there is no appreciable demand in the consumer market for Linux, and there very likely will never be. I don't mean to antagonize Linux aficionados, but that's not the fault of the Evil Empire of Redmond. So, it's simply not worth it for these companies to bother. It's not a "market failure" because a fringe group of consumers are inconvenienced. You make this sound like an orphan drug. Second, and more importantly, Dell, HP, and Lenovo are not free to combine and stand up to Microsoft. U.S. antitrust laws would shut that down immediately. In other words, government interference is contributing to this problem you're lamenting. That's not a "market failure" either -- it's a political failure. As to established, profitable companies "having more options," as you say; it's just as easily said that smaller, newer companies are more nimble and able to spot undeveloped, unsatisfied niches in consumer demand. That's called competition -- sometimes the puncher wins, and sometimes the boxer wins. And, finally, I never said that no one would ever try to "abuse" the consumer. What I'm saying is that there is always the threat of competition acting as a corrective.

asgard1024 11y ago
I have seen it in market for Asus EEE PCs with Linux. There was a demand here in Czech Republic but Asus was not interested (it wanted to push Windows to the market). It had nothing to do with Linux being not in demand (the laptops were underpowered to run latest Windows), nor with U.S. antitrust laws; and everything with the fact that Asus preinstalls Windows on its other laptops. You simply don't want to believe these things happen. But if you pay attention, you can see lot of incidental evidence that it happens. But there is always plausible deniability, it's never done too overtly. > I never said that no one would ever try to "abuse" the consumer Companies are selected for abusive behavior by evolutionary pressure. No person or company is really interested in being in competition (if survival really depends on it); everybody runs as fast (and as creatively) as they can to avoid it and reap maximal profits. It can be shown on rather simple multi-agent simulations. I am not sure what leads so many people to conclusion that companies like MS or HP - which can build freaking computers and operating systems - cannot figure out a simple fact that in some cases acting together against consumer interests will in fact increase their profits.
- mariodiana 11y ago
  The entire population of the Czech Republic is something like 10 million people, just a couple of million more than that of New York City. I'm skeptical as to just how much demand that adds up to in the context of Asus's worldwide market.