__/ [ hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx ] on Tuesday 11 July 2006 08:00 \__
> Mark Kent wrote:
> [...]
>> >> Competition, capitalism *is* the preferred model. However, microsoft
>> >> has achieved, effectively, total vendor lock-in across the board, thus
>> >> the finding that microsoft has monopoly power. Monopoly power is
>> >> american? Not in my america.
> [...]
>> The concept of a natural monopoly is what must be considered. Although
>> I've discovered here that this concept appears to have been politicised
>> in the US, rather like much science has been, however, the fundamental
>> requirements are:
>>
>> 1. An industry which has a limited userbase
>> 2. An industry which has an exceptionally high infrastructure cost
>> 3. An industry which has limited/capped income per user
>> 4. An industry which presents commodity items to the user
> [...]
>
> I think that it really has to do with barriers to entry (generally
> cost).
>
> It costs a fortune to build a power plant, and if there's an unused
> plant then it's almost a total write off, I'd imagine. There ain't
> room for two power plants in one small town :)
>
> Also, there's the cost of starting/stopping the power plant to factor
> in.
>
> In software, the barriers to entry are different, which is where FUD
> comes in. Yes?
Only if you assume re-use (e.g. GPL) can entry barriers change. Apart from
that, cost of distribution and production is merely nill. This can serve
either side in this paradigm divide.
Bsst wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Watch your step, that soapbox is very slippery
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
8:25am up 74 days 13:28, 12 users, load average: 0.61, 0.47, 0.44
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
