From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 2/23/26 12:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/23/26 12:12 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >> On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   >>> On 2/23/26 9:46 AM, DFS wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> "[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only   
   >>>>> OSs out there:"  -  lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Only you are lying, asshole.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> FU   
   >>>   
   >>> Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a   
   >>> monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,   
   >>> Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short   
   >>> inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.  GNU/   
   >>> Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems.   
   >>   
   >> Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.   
   >>   
   >> Monopolies:   
   >>   
   >> * Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a specific   
   >> market, typically with no close substitutes.   
   >>   
   >> * Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence   
   >> market prices, & limiting competitor entry.   
   >>   
   >> * Market Share:  having very large share (often over 50%) is generally   
   >> considered to have monopoly power.   
   >>   
   >> Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't   
   >> illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue   
   >> gain.   
   >   
   > The first example fits Apple, though.  Apple has created a closed   
   > platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you literally   
   > have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, that is   
   > definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so loathe to make   
   > any other choice.   
      
   Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.  Or Linux.   
   This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.   
      
   Look at automobiles for an example:  GM can't manufacture a Mustang   
   because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a close   
   substitute.  Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro.   
      
      
   > Windows not only has that definition in effect, but   
   > the one of having majority of the market.   
      
   Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so the   
   Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.   
      
   For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that Windows   
   comes close.  However, merely having majority marketshare in of itself   
   is not sufficient:  it also needs to be demonstrated that having that   
   majority has given them significant pricing power leverage.   
      
      
   > If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally   
   > be no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...   
      
   Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?   
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)