Alrighty, hey everyone. I am doing a position essay (for any high schoolers 10th grade and below, for god sakes do not take these AP classes!) on the Microsoft monopoly, namely, the two following issues
-Does Microsoft hold a monopoly on the software industry?
-Does this monopoly (or I guess if the answer to the first question is no, then Microsoft's market dominance) actually hurt the industry and consumers, or is it actually beneficial.
Well anyhow, I will spare you all the full-text arguments on the first one, because it's really extremely dull, but my main argument is that yes, Microsoft does hold a business monopoly in all software markets outside of the OS not because it owns such a large market share, but simply because it gives out its products (such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc.) for free with its Windows OS, something that rival products simply cannot compete with. In the OS market however, Microsoft does not hold a monopoly, because outside of human habit and familiarity, there is nothing inherent in computers which prevents users from using an alternative OS like Linux (all hardware is compatible, most software can at least be emulated, if not supported natively, and Linux users can communicate freely with Windows users)
Anyhow, it's my theory to the second question which I'm having a bit trouble formulating. My basic premise is that Microsoft, in its dominance of the industry, has forced or will eventually force all other software companies to go freeware. Although this is bad from a business sense (It is in essence sacrificing the entire rest of the highly profitable software industry to simply sell a single product, the Windows OS), this is an ideal situation for the consumer, which gets products for free with their Windows (for example, instead of having to pay an $30 for a web browser like Netscape in the past, we now get Internet Explorer for free), but still retains the innovation and product improvement (usually lacking in other monopolized industries) through open-source, freely distributed software. Anyhow, that's what I'm trying to say, here's the actual text...
Any suggestions? I'd really like to know some of your thoughts on this 'Microsoft's monopoly has destroyed the industry but is awesome for consumers because it spawned the anti-business open-source industry' argument.
-Does Microsoft hold a monopoly on the software industry?
-Does this monopoly (or I guess if the answer to the first question is no, then Microsoft's market dominance) actually hurt the industry and consumers, or is it actually beneficial.
Well anyhow, I will spare you all the full-text arguments on the first one, because it's really extremely dull, but my main argument is that yes, Microsoft does hold a business monopoly in all software markets outside of the OS not because it owns such a large market share, but simply because it gives out its products (such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc.) for free with its Windows OS, something that rival products simply cannot compete with. In the OS market however, Microsoft does not hold a monopoly, because outside of human habit and familiarity, there is nothing inherent in computers which prevents users from using an alternative OS like Linux (all hardware is compatible, most software can at least be emulated, if not supported natively, and Linux users can communicate freely with Windows users)
Anyhow, it's my theory to the second question which I'm having a bit trouble formulating. My basic premise is that Microsoft, in its dominance of the industry, has forced or will eventually force all other software companies to go freeware. Although this is bad from a business sense (It is in essence sacrificing the entire rest of the highly profitable software industry to simply sell a single product, the Windows OS), this is an ideal situation for the consumer, which gets products for free with their Windows (for example, instead of having to pay an $30 for a web browser like Netscape in the past, we now get Internet Explorer for free), but still retains the innovation and product improvement (usually lacking in other monopolized industries) through open-source, freely distributed software. Anyhow, that's what I'm trying to say, here's the actual text...
Quote:
Microsoft has in the past used its already established market base, especially in the operating system industry, to overtake competing products in the market. With the introduction of the Internet Explorer web browser, Microsoft wiped out a viable industry in which profits were being made, by giving away a product for free. Similarly, with its integration of other computer applications, such as firewalls, antivirus programs, CD writing software, and media players, Microsoft may well be destroying healthy, profitable industries, by giving away a product for free through integration into the ubiquitous Windows operating system. Although this undeniably hurts competition, unlike other industries Microsoft’s market dominance and anticompetitive actions have in fact benefited consumers. By giving away its web browser for free, Microsoft provided not only a competitive alternative, but in the process provided a free product in a market where the consumer would normally have to pay. And contrary to popular thought upon monopolies, Microsoft has not stagnated the software development industry, but instead has forced it to change its dynamic. Innovation and development still takes place, not in products designed for profit, but in open-source products that are freely distributed. Instead of a competition between selling profitable products, the entire software industry has evolved into a competition between distributing better products, for free, a unique condition of the software industry forced by Microsoft’s dominance and free distribution. In recent times, competitive software has been produced in the form of the Linux OS, and the Mozilla Firefox web browser, both of which have been a hallmark of innovation and improved functionality over the standard Microsoft products. Instead of being released as a for-profit commodity, however, as would have occurred in any other industry, both products have been distributed for free to consumers, a result of these unique circumstances of the software industry. True, this has in essence destroyed and reduced the software industry to a singular profitable product—the Microsoft Windows OS—forcing the entire industry to evolve into an open-source, free distribution system as the only way for a product not integrated into Windows to be successful. This no doubt is a heavy loss of what could have potentially been an immensely profitable industry (think of everyone having to shell out $30 for every simple function of a computer). However, for the consumer, this has created an almost utopian scenario, of reducing what was previously a pay product into one that is freely available to everyone, while at the same time retaining the innovation and product improvement through a viable open-source industry.
Any suggestions? I'd really like to know some of your thoughts on this 'Microsoft's monopoly has destroyed the industry but is awesome for consumers because it spawned the anti-business open-source industry' argument.
SPOOKY TACO FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!
