Linked by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff on Fri 31st Aug 2007 08:54 UTC
Editorial This article is an answer to "Competition Is Not Good" by Kroc and reading it wouldn't be comfortable without switching to and from the original article. I wrote it just because I do strongly disagree with Kroc and I believe I can prove that he is not as close to truth as it may seem from the first glance.
Thread beginning with comment 267328
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I agree
by ddc_ on Fri 31st Aug 2007 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE: I agree"
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

That's just one school of economics, while other exist. The monopoly is not as bad as it is considered untill there's some unbreakable way to force competitors to shut down. In software there is such a way: copyright. In hardware no such barrier exists, so monopoly is just no bad thing. See the PC processor market history for example.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I agree
by SReilly on Fri 31st Aug 2007 14:29 in reply to "RE[2]: I agree"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

See the PC processor market history for example.


I'm afraid that the PC processor market is a prime example of what happens when there is competition involved. If it where not for AMD, Intel would have no reason to push they're x86 design forward.

Take the Itanic (Itanium) mess. It's a prime example of a company which thought that the world would follow it's lead no matter what it did. AMD brought out the x86-64bit extensions which proved so popular that Intel had to follow suit.

If Intel where the sold manufacturer of x86 processors, all 64 bit PCs today would be running Itanium.

There is no monopoly in the x86 processor market and there hasn't been in a while.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: I agree
by sbergman27 on Fri 31st Aug 2007 14:52 in reply to "RE[3]: I agree"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Indeed. Chipzilla is big. But Mothra cleaned their clocks on the Itanic thing.

Sometimes... things work like they are supposed to. I attribute it to an accounting error in heaven or some such. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: I agree
by ddc_ on Fri 31st Aug 2007 19:03 in reply to "RE[3]: I agree"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

I believe You're too much afraid to look a bit further into PC hardware history. The first PCs' processors were Intel's monopoly.

Reply Parent Score: 1