Census Bureau: All rich US counties in VA

[Kuciwalker]

[Provost Harrison]

I will say something for Albert though...he's one of the few Poly posters who can spell bureau...or can use a spellcheck

[KrazyHorse]

Microsoft in OS and Google in Online Advertising and Valve in online game distribution could all be considered natural monopolies in some fashion.

1) other OSes have 10%% share. That is not a monopoly.
2) that is retarded
3) see 2

[Asher]

Neither are natural monopolies because any competitor can make an OS/game distribution service everyone can get, people just need to want to.

That was not the case with actual natural monopolies like Bell.

[MikeH]

1) other OSes have 10%% share. That is not a monopoly.
2) that is retarded
3) see 2

Not to mention that the 10% (more like 12%) figure is only for desktops, M$ has nowhere near a monopoly in server OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

[MRT144]

Neither are natural monopolies because any competitor can make an OS/game distribution service everyone can get, people just need to want to.

That was not the case with actual natural monopolies like Bell.

The barrier for entry is competing against the economies of scale of the first to get there. Wanting it more has nothing to do with it. Or do you really think the guys at Impulse just aren't hungry enough.

[MikeH]

Why are you assuming someone would create a new OS to compete with M$? Might be that they are creating it for a completely different purpose.

[DanS]

Google is not a not a natural monopoly, but they have one hell of a "moat" to defend their business. Probably the widest moat by far in the technology business.

[MRT144]

Why are you assuming someone would create a new OS to compete with M$? Might be that they are creating it for a completely different purpose.

So you're conceding that the only place one can compete with MS is in non desktop OS because they have such a dominant position there and the costs of competition would be too great.

[MRT144]

Google is not a not a natural monopoly, but they have one hell of a "moat" to defend their business. Probably the widest moat by far in the technology business.

They have some features of a natural monopoly such as vast economies of scale that stunt competition.

[MikeH]

Nope. Absolutely not.

Not even when they were at the height of their powers, but I'd be especially stupid to claim it when I think they are just about to start taking real hits in their market share from Google OS and better Linux desktop distros.

[Asher]

The barrier for entry is competing against the economies of scale of the first to get there. Wanting it more has nothing to do with it. Or do you really think the guys at Impulse just aren't hungry enough.

The guys at Impulse aren't talented enough. It is a patently inferior service.

[Asher]

So you're conceding that the only place one can compete with MS is in non desktop OS because they have such a dominant position there and the costs of competition would be too great.

Apple's marketshare is climbing.

iOS in particular has been disruptive, many laptop sales are being lost to iOS instead of Windows.

Windows is not a natural monopoly because the customer has choice. They simply overwhelmingly choose to use Windows, because developers overwhelmingly choose to develop for Windows.

Speaking as a developer, there's reasons for that. MS makes development easy, it's been their strategy since day one. Apple changes technology stacks every 5 years with quirky implementations and half-assed tools. Linux is a "do it yourself, jackass" mentality.

[MRT144]

Apple's marketshare is climbing.

iOS in particular has been disruptive, many laptop sales are being lost to iOS instead of Windows.

Windows is not a natural monopoly because the customer has choice. They simply overwhelmingly choose to use Windows, because developers overwhelmingly choose to develop for Windows.

Depending on where you put choice, Bell didn't have a natural monopoly because I can always choose not to use a phone.

[Asher]

Depending on where you put choice, Bell didn't have a natural monopoly because I can always choose not to use a phone.

The choice is within the market that you're arguing has a monopoly.