(…)
Why is it acceptable for Sony to be the exclusive sole provider of button knobs for their radios? MONOPOLY! SHUT 'EM DOWN!
Why is it acceptable for Ford to bundle their own steering wheels within their line of vehicles? MONOPOLY! SHUT 'EM DOWN!
Why is it acceptable for Nokia to only allow their mobile services to only run on their line of phones? MONOPOLY! SHUT 'EM DOWN!
If these three examples didn’t make it glaringly obvious, then let me pass along the clue stick. (No beating with clue sticks here.) Each of these companies are the sole supplier of their complete product. They can bundle as little or as much into it as they like without concern of monopoly issues. No matter how big these companies get, or how much influence they have over the industry, they can continue to bundle whatever they wish into their products as long as the product/service they are bundling/adding/integrating is only a modest departure from that product’s core business.
„Why” you ask? Because, they, unlike Microsoft, create the complete product rather than adopting a piecemeal approach.
For the record, let it be known that being a monopoly is *NOT* illegal. This can’t be stressed enough. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve come across a person on the internet that took their stance on „the monopoly issue” — whether they be in defense or against a company that achieved monopoly status — that based his or her opinions on the topic with the misguided belief that being a monopoly is somehow illegal.
To correct those of you that may still be swimming in that sea of misinformation… BEING A MONOPOLY IS NOT, BY ANY MEANS, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE ILLEGAL… at least not by itself.
(…)
„Obywatele…”
(d. „Kochana młodzieży…”; d. oddajcie mi moje 5 minut; d. muzeum Rękawiczek; d. muzeum sztuki nienowoczesnej; d. w walce o sojusz Robotnika, Chłopa i Urzędnika Pracującego; d. salon zależnych; d blog elegancki & symetryczny.)