I have a hypothesis about this phenomenon of the software house monopolies, which is that wherever consistency of human interaction is beneficial, you get large

I have a hypothesis about this phenomenon of the software house monopolies, which is that wherever consistency of human interaction is beneficial, you get large concentrations of development, for reasons of human computer interaction being difficult and operating consistency and communication of skills network effects are created as a function of intrinsic human values propagation. Conceal the interface from direct user manipulation or the necessity for interaction for function, and individual or very small groups of artisans can be effective in extreme scale as is the case with much internet infrastructure and the Linux kernel. In the example of concentration of large development investment I'm thinking about, which is Microsoft Office, both kinds of network effects have been used to control and conflate different desires of monopoly, charades of open document formats and email protocol implementation (in this case the documentation is very good, practice however..) dancing between the lines of simpler competition and initiatives. Although the argument I'm effectively making turns out rather familiar to anyone who thinks of the turn of century software economy, I'm trying to replace economic theory with a suggestion that it's important to think about user applications for critical new infrastructure and protocols that can be developed simultaneously at comparable velocity alongside supportive infrastructure, instead of declaring standards and protocols that are left to capital markets to realize as products. Imagine if TBL had written a book recommendation and bartering spec as a backup for the paperless proposition of hypertext? Edit: fixed autocomplete error, removed "even" from last sentence.