What Reginald is trying say, is that every business leader's high priority is to construct a high-barrier of entry into their market. That barrier can be almost anything:
While the phone system is open, there is a high-barrier of entry, because no one can just come along and build the entire infrastructure to route calls around the world--it's too expensive. With the x86 CPU architecture, which is "open," there is no competition because of the sheer complexity of the product, and the cost of engineering it. For software, it is a proprietary lock. With beverages, there is the Coke or Pepsi brand name. With fried chicken, it is the colonel's secret blend of 11 herbs and spices.
What the barrier is made of--expensive infrastructure, complexity, proprietariness, brand name, whatever--there simply has to be one. I honestly can't think of any solid industries where the field isn't narrowed to just one or two primary players. Even with browses--just last spring, there were many different, viable browser programs on the market. Now, there are just two.
I think you'll notice that in every young industry, there are many small players, which eventually get squashed. For many years, then, all the money will be flowing into just a few hands. Eventually, there is the possibility that the barrier of entry gets naturally low-enough for the competition to re-emerge.
Sal Habash
P.S. Daniel, let me again say that I in no way believe that you have a hatred toward Microsoft. In fact, when you first started posting, that was the first thing I noticed. You have a diplomatic way of stating your opinions without getting emotional about it. |
