Originally Posted by Snerp
In America and the other free nations everyone has the ability to choose their destiny. The starter companies may start as a baby, but as that baby develops into an adult it will have an opportunity to beat the pro boxer. Will it take work? yes, Will it take dedication? yes. There is nothing preventing someone from writing their own OS and marketing it.
It's like how AT&T had a "monopoly". They weren't preventing people from digging their own trenches and laying down wires, but they didn't want to share the lines they installed. AT&T was the monster. So the government split it up and forced them to lease their lines. The supposed result of this was lower cost. The cost rose and the company that did all the work got screwed. Plenty of people will respond to that by saying that they didn't need the money, but if that was you, if you did all the work, I don't think you would be happy.
Crying about Microsoft's "effective monopoly", which doesn't exist, does nothing. If there was a better OS for me out there I would use it. Guess what? There isn't and plenty of people feel that way.
With all due respect, I think your POV over-simplifies the issue and is a little ideological. It is not a simple issue to create an OS that rivals MS's. MS works hard to maintain it's dominance, though legal and political mechanisms as well as by manipulating market forces. It is so big and so powerful that emerging software companies who may well want to compete with MS's OSs find it virtually impossible. As soon as any potential rival surfaces, MS either buys them, or a lot of their stock, or wraps them up in copyright, patent and other legalities until they either have no money left to function as a business, or sell out.
So many companies rely on MS for their business, they don't even require MS to put any pressure on them not
to use alternative OSs, but have no doubt, that if required, MS will pressurise (through what ever method they can) companies they deal with, not to use rival operative systems and software. Such is their wealth, power and influence, they can do this and get away with it too. They're not above the law, but they have enough money to "use" the legal system (and political system too) to their ultimate advantage.
You can't beat a giant like MS when you're new and small. New, small businesses are almost always at their most venerable and financially weak. They do not have the hordes of lawyers to fight off a legal onslaught by MS, nor can they afford to fight an advertising campaign war either.
The only reason Linux is on many desktops and laptops is because the vast majority of Linux OSs in use on those platforms were free to the end user. Open-source is like a hydra to MS. If they manage to kill one variant off through legal or other processes, another two variants pop up. It is in MS's financial interest to not
pursue the small amount of market share they loose out to Linux based OSs, which is why Linux survives, in it's many variations.
If MS wants your market share, it's going to get it, either by buying you up, or forcing you out. What company could really act as a real
competitive threat to MS?
Also, why do you say "crying" about MS's effective monopoly? That kind of rhetoric implies that there is something wrong, or childish, or unworthy with articulating an anti-monopolistic option? I love capitalism as much as the next man, and monopolies, pedantically defined, or effective
are a threat to capitalism. The final result of a capitalism where monopolies (effective or otherwise) are left unchecked, is one single super company owning everything. Then there is no capitalism. Capitalist economies thrive on diversity and competition, there is no effective competition for MS and as a result, diversity suffers.
Of course MS products do a good job. I am a fan of XP SP2 and find it to be the best OS I’ve ever used. I’m also a fan of capitalism and firmly against anything that threatens it and monopolies are one of the biggest threats a capitalist economy faces.
Perhaps the reason why there are no better OSs out there for you and I, is because MS has no real competition. Perhaps if there were another company, or two, or six, or sixty that were as wealthy and powerful as MS and that produced OSs for the desktop/laptop market, you and I would be able to find a better alternative to Windows?