On 5/6/05, DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But being BIG in the marketplace is part of the definition of a monopoly. Pretty tough to be unsuccessful and be a monopoly, and vice versa without being either the government or government subsidized.
My point was that it is unfair to imply that because Linux exists as a competitor that that is evidence that Microsoft is not really a monopolist after all.
To me, neither Linux nor Google are relevant examples of successful competitors against Microsoft's anti-competitive and monopolistic business practices anyway.
What would be a relevant example?
-todd
There really aren't any. Apple might arguably be on the list. In days long past there was Atari, Amiga, IBM, others I've forgotten. But any success of those company's OS's was short-lived. Anyway we're talking about today, so other than the potential of Linux becoming a significant competitor, I have to go with "There really aren't any" in the OS market.
And if you ask at what point I would consider Linux a significant competitor to Windows, I'd probably say at the point it has a market share no more than twenty percentage points different from Windows. If we presume it is in a market with say only Windows and the Apple OS de jour, then both M$ competitors would need about a 30%-35% combined market share to be considered competitive.
I know that 20% market share is often thrown around as a minimum number before an OS has enough "Mind Share" to become a major force, but history shows that's unsubstantiated. IBM's OS/2 gained more than that at one point in it's short life and still died.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
