Jack wrote:

That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they
have robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are
themselves.

I'd love to not have a monopoly like that. MS controls 93% of the
market, Apple most of the rest. Sounds like a monopoly to me,
probably more of a monopoly than AT&T had when they were broken up.

If they didn't improve their products with new features and the
like, their revenue streams would wither.

Nope, that is the problem with monopolies like MS. Lack of
competition means they can sell garbage with little fear of revenue
streams withering, and, regardless of what the stooges say, Windows
has been crap from day one. Any sort of healthy competition and MS
would have died or provided a quality product. They are a perfect
example of exactly why monopolies are bad for the consumer.

If MS did not develop a successor to Windows 3.11 or XP or any other
version, their revenue stream would wither. If everybody already has, say,
XP, where is any new sale going to come from? Oh, there will be some buying
their first computer, but that's not the same as the millions who replace
XP, at some cost, with a newer version.


That is exactly wrong. Without competition, they do not have to
provide a better product. It's one of the problems with capitalism
addressed by the Sherman Anti trust act.

Not true. Not true at all. Assume you have a company in a town with 100
prospects. You sell each of the 100 prospects your product your first year
in business. Where does your revenue come from next year? If you don't make
a NEW product to replace the first, you're out of business.

Secondly, monopolies are GUARANTEED by the US Constitution (Article I,
Section 8).

Third, a monopoly that comes into existence and continues by actions solely
within the organization are NOT covered by the Sherman act. A company can
set whatever price it wants for its product or service and nothing illegal
has taken place. Only when a company suppresses competition by some external
process (such as buying the competing company) does the Act latch in.


The exceptions
to this rule are the monopolies established or controlled by some
agency of government (think cable TV).

Cable TV is a monopoly? I can get Comcast, Direct TV, Verison, Dish
TV and more, already more than the 2 companies that control 97% of
the PC OS market. So, if MS is not exactly a monopoly, neither are
the myriad of cable companies.