Chaz: "However, the individual companies might not survive in that scenario. The price competition would have Office at 10 dollars overnight. None of them would have a strength to lean on, a product to distinguish them. No bargaining position."
Gerald: "Well, collectively, they'd have Microsoft's strengths. Each would have Microsoft's corporate culture, full access to the full range of Microsoft's intellectual property and full freedom to use those assets in any way they see fit."
Chaz: "None of them would have a strength to lean on, a product to distinguish them. No bargaining position."
No, Seriously :-) MSFT had enormous financial and monopoly clout, few scruples, and no oversight. All that will change, in this scenario.
>>>If the "Windows company" wants to leverage its OS expertise into applications, let it,<<<
Dangerous. And unproductive for everyone else, as they still have that monopoly, and can hold up everyone else's progress again while they try to repeat 1993-1996. I agree about the other companies. But the OS is the central monopoly position. Unless you have the proviso that their market share had fallen in the OS had fallen below x percent. Hard to figure, though.
>>>I have greater confidence in the ability of free markets than of government regulation to promote economic welfare.<<<
Both are necessary but even together insufficient. You need a cohesive nurturing culture, technology, altruism, educational system, some egalitarian features...
Aside from that, the government practically invented the computer business from whole cloth.
Cheers,
Chaz |
