4 ms·
This definition kind of punts the question on to the definition of "compete." Microsoft in the 1990s was probably the most clear-cut monopoly in most of our lif
by chc 8y ago
This definition kind of punts the question on to the definition of "compete." Microsoft in the 1990s was probably the most clear-cut monopoly in most of our lifetimes, and they still had multiple competitors (e.g. the then-beleaguered Apple), which they did try to use as a defense. I think the key factor is more about whether you believe the competitors are a credible threat. If it doesn't seem like a company is realistically beatable under the current circumstances, that's sort of what we're looking for when we talk about monopolies.
- everdev 8y agoAnd in retrospect, it would have been a mistake to break up Microsoft. No one is advocating breaking them up today. And that happened just through market forces and time, no government intervention needed.
- chc 8y agoThere was absolutely intervention from multiple governments, and it scared Microsoft so much that they changed their company culture to studiously avoid even the appearance of monopolism — because they knew that if they ever got brought to court again, the break-up would almost certainly happen. If it had really been left just to market forces and time, Apple might have gone under (Microsoft actually propped them up when they were struggling in order to keep up the facade of competition), and Microsoft would have brought their might to bear against all the competitors that have risen up since then instead of being the gentle giant we have known for the past couple of decades.