Windows 8 - Looks really awsome

By me doesn't matter, by the market does.

As they do not require 'replacements for Windows in its entirety'.

The discussion was not about competition within the post-PDA market.

With some but not all Windows alternatives that you suggested. Depending on how broad a definition you wish to apply to a 'class'.

Perhaps so, but because of these limitations Windows alternatives do not service the gamer section of the market in your example. Hence they are not competing with Windows across its market but as alternatives for sections of it only.

 

A projection as a component of analysis.

 

There are games that don't work with Windows too.

By your logic, we should say that Sony has a monopoly in video-games because some exclusive titles exist for its PS3 platform. lol This is not what constitutes a monopoly.

That too.

 

Then substitute pc gamer for gamer. Either way pc gamers are a portion of the market every bit as much as designers. And pc gamers are your example, not the only one.

 

PC Gamers can be satisfied by Windows alternatives. Maybe an add-the-name-of your-specific-favorite-Windows-game-title-here gamer can not, but that's the fault of the company which makes that specific favorite Windows game title. There are no technical limitations. Either way, Windows is not a monopoly and there are real alternatives to it.

 

And I have no intention to 'stop the projections that may or may not be components of analysis' as it could then alternatively be expressed, quite regardless of your judgement thereof and despite your imperative issuance to that effect.

 

Windows is described best as a success, the desktop OS market leader, etc. Monopoly is not an appropriate term to describe it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft, emphasis mine.

 

I thought we were talking about Windows in 2012? If it once held a monopoly in 1999 (questionable IMO), the same is not true now (unquestionable IMO).

 

In 2009 it still was:

https://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/011709-europe-charges-microsoft-with-abuse.html

The monopoly still continues, hopefully the abuse of that position has ceased.

Cheers, Nick.

 

I don't think the primary reason for Microsoft's dominant position is due to its anti-competitive behaviour. IMHO its simply due to historic lack of viable competition in the desktop market.

 

Or a hegemony.

 

Of course they prefer Windows. There are no alternatives. They can't afford a Mac and they need to run TurboTax, so they buy a Powerspec with Windows XP.

(No insult to Microcenter BTW. My Powerspec has lasted 8 years with no sign of failing.)

Speaking of Powerspecs, the one I got came with Linux. Instead of Ubuntu or Mandrake or such, it was a trashy nonviable one called Linspire. Others Linux machines come with stuff like Linpus, and many have graphics chipsets that are not Linux-friendly at all - your average Dell with Windows preinstalled probably supports Linux better than a dedicated Linux desktop. Of course people will prefer windows, if they don't get their money's worth buying a Linux desktop!

The problem isn't difficulty of use, it's lack of available applications. Can you run TurboTax on Ubuntu? Can you run Photoshop? Can you run Band-in-a-box? The answer is no, no, and no, and the open source alternatives are simply not as effective, 'cause nobody's being payed to work on them.

 

I doubt the average computer user is going to shell out over $600 for photoshop. As far as Turbo Tax goes, a person can do that online at their website. I am not familiar with Band in the box but if a person uses their computer mainly for browsing, doing some photo or sound editing, I believe Ubuntu can be a viable alternative with the available programs. If Windows is going in the direction of Windows 8, I for one will be giving it a try.

 

You are confusing allegations of monopoly in browser market with allegations of monopoly in OS market. Both are wrong, when it comes to Microsoft and its products. Competitors exist and offer alternatives. Wherever they are viable or not, good or not, satisfactory or not, is subjective and not a constituent aspect of a monopoly. Monopoly = lack of competitors with a share in the market.

The definition of a monopoly is pretty straightforward, but some people is now using this term in a pejorative form to attack market leaders.

 

There's more than one way (surprise!) to look at this. It could be argued that when a company becomes as large as Microsoft and provides what can be considered indispensable products and services to the nation, and maybe the world, it should be classified as a "Utility" and regulated along those lines. While there is technically competition, eg Apple, it does not really serve to regulate the market because the competitor(s) have too small a share. Cell phone companies are another similar example. While there are multiple players the only thing that has made them somewhat competitive is number porting. Before it was possible to move one's phone number to a different carrier the fact that other carriers existed was often irrelevant since people could not stand the disruption caused by losing their phone number. There was only the appearance of competition.

There are significant advantages to having Windows be the OS of the world, but the competition model doesn't serve to moderate the disadvantages. Just my .02 of course

 

^ This seems contradictory to what's mentioned in the Sinofsky article Creating the Windows 8 user experience;
'Fast and fluid represents a few core things to us. It means that the UI is responsive, performant, beautiful, and animated.' link
While 'beauty' is rather subjective, removing Aero from the desktop can hardly be described as making it 'animated'.
But I get it, my PC will be treated as a tablet as there is this need to save my battery. Giving users an option to switch Aero on/off is too much to ask oc.

 

I am not confusing anything. I have not even said Microsoft is a monopoly. The EU and US Judges are the ones that said MS is/was.
Microsoft abused their market dominance of the desktop PC OS market, its as simple as that.

Your definition of what a monopoly in an economic market appears to be different to what EU and US law makers think.

 

Do you think you can separate the two?

The strict definition of a monopoly is kinda crappy. The fact is that MS makes it hard to break into their market, and perhaps that's because they just make such a good product and super duper great for them. But when MS packages a piece of software, like IE, with their OS it's much harder for other browsers to break into the market because by default the OS uses IE.

That's why the EU made their ruling.

It's hard not to call MS a monopoly even if it is absolutely and technically not a monopoly. But when you control 90% of a products market you may as well be, regardless of competition.

 

Judges don't make correct decisions everytime. That's why there are appeal systems.

No it isn't hard. It just requires a bit of honesty and less dramatization of things.

 

On 17 September 2007, Microsoft lost their appeal against the European Commission's case. The €497 million fine was upheld...On 22 October 2007, Microsoft announced that it would comply and not appeal the decision any more,[17] and Microsoft did not appeal within the required two months as of 17 November 2007.
...
In January 2009, the European Commission announced it would investigate the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems from Microsoft, saying "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."[25][26] In response, Microsoft announced that it would not bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 7 E, the version of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe.[27][28][29][30][31][32]

On December 16, 2009, the European Union agreed to allow competing browsers, with Microsoft providing a "ballot box" screen letting users choose one of twelve popular products listed in random order. link
As already written, EU (and US) law have defined 'monopoly' differently than as coined in a dictionary.

 

That decision has nothing to do with definitions of monopoly. Those were (wrong IMO) antitrust decisions.

There are people that now seem to use monopoly - a possible end - as a synonym to (perceived) anti-competitive behavior - a means. Semantically, this is not correct.

Monopoly - from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell).

 

Right. The strict definition of a monopoly would mean that any competition completely negates a monopoly. In reality it's more about controlling and dominating a market than being the only player.

Microsoft controls the desktop market. Linux has not broken in, OSX has not broken in. Even with the rising OSX market share it's nowhere near Windows.

Why is that? Is it just because Windows is so good or maybe it's because Microsoft already controls the entire market.

 

Yes. Thank you for reiterating the dictionary definition that doesn't actually apply in the real world.

We know what the definition of a monopoly. In any highschool economics class you should have learned how we define companies as being monopolistic.