From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-23 12:11, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/23/26 2:54 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells another   
   > story.  The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.  If   
   > anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.  They are a   
   > small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.   
      
   The story that tells is that people really LIKE what they're getting.   
      
   "Small monopoly" is a great oxymoron...   
      
   ...from a moron!   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there, the   
   > differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as great, as   
   > between Winblows and macOS.   
    > >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library of   
   > software.  It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.  macOS   
   > is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.   
      
   Why would you be unsatisfied?   
      
   Mac apps are mostly the same apps as you can get on Windows.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)