> I could do this for other decades. Please do this for the 60's and 70's and IBM's 70% market share that actually eventually led formally to an anti-trust cas

> I could do this for other decades. Please do this for the 60's and 70's and IBM's 70% market share that actually eventually led formally to an anti-trust case against the company [1]. You seem to conflating the availability of occasional and niche alternatives with an actual competitive market concerning products with major mainstream adoption. In a real competitive market you would have like five to ten providers for substantially the same product or close substitutes. This kind of market is when buyers benefit and this is when producers are forced to compete on price or features. Of course producers hate competition. Its less profit for the same work and a constant threat of extinction if you don't deliver. Various arguments have been advanced (by vested interests, most notably Microsoft trying turn black into white during its own anti-trust case in the 90's) to justify ex-post the pervasive tech exceptionalism in matters of market concentration and associated regulation: "network effects" and innate "winner-takes-all" in tech being the most prominent. > its really only on the PC and server PC where x86 was dominate. Turns out that's not all of computing Its a very strange view: If an entity is not dominating 100% all related markets its not a monopoly. Monopolists would love to have you as jury member in an anti-trust trial. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IBM