|
|
|
|
|
|
by pepperp
4848 days ago
|
|
|
Fair, I get you. I still wouldn't have a problem with the corrected analogy. Firstly, I consider the web browser an integral part of an OS even if you have the choice to replace it, so it's not creating a further monopoly, it's just part of the package (just like tires and the body of a car). But more importantly, problems caused by some monopolies (e.g. extortion), and monopolies themselves, have historically been the RESULT of government intervention. Other web browsers obviously can compete considering IE is not the most widely used browser anymore. |
|
|
Originally, Netscape was a thriving company and able to make money by selling it's software to consumers. Microsoft crushed them by giving their interferer browser away for free with their Windows monopoly. For many years after that, consumers had a terrible browser with little to no alternatives.
Eventually, web browsers found a way to compete but consumers suffered with the artificially created IE monopoly. Innovation to slow down and even went backwards during those years.
You're looking at the world today as if it was always thriving with choices but MS inflicted many years of damage to consumers by illegally driving out competition and stifling innovation.
It's important for governments to protect competition and prevent monopoly abuse. You might argue that MS got away with killing Netscape because the fine was worth it for them but at least they were stopped from preventing more damage with their monopoly. Who knows what other businesses they would have tried to shut down.