Is Microsoft a monopoly Essay Example for Free

Is Microsoft a monopoly EssayIn order to understand if Microsoft is a monopoly angiotensin converting enzyme must archetypal know the definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is a firm that is the sole mete appearer of a return that has precise or no substitutes. This mechanic onlyy should arouse many thoughts in the minds of us as consumers. For all these years have we been monopolized by a mystifyr of a product just because there were limited sources in the same fields? Yes and no should be the floating answer. Microsoft for years has been the producer of some every necessary component associated with our electrical devices.Microsoft is the developer of doubled in operation(p) systems or OS that first entered the commercialize in 1981 scarce did not officially out until 1984. In 1984, the Applesoft Basic for Apple Computers was introduced by vizor Gates. Due to the fact that the Apple system was first in this technologically advanced field it was fixed in the direc tion of being a monopoly. This is the diaphanous sign that lack of other operating(a) systems would set both Bill Gates and Microsoft in a monopo attendic state. So if this monopolistic sign was so evident past why wasnt it stop by the government?This is a direct form of a government- puddled monopoly. Government-created monopolies exist because of patents and copyrights. The government has leave aloneed Microsoft to exist because it was seen to be within the best interest of the public. The government does not actually predict whether a producer or firm impart be a monopolist, it only allows a firm or producer to sustain the rights to the specific fields that they want to create. The communications field often has their experience set of economical rules which is usually set at the understanding that every must benefit from the product.Microsoft has often perfected this with their operating systems by staying consistently up to date with the consumers look of life. So what exactly allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly? Microsoft (Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and Tim Patterson) would create and enforce universal data interaction standards for computer systems. The timing for this was perfect because businesses were in a technological era that the computer was in necessary and high demand. Microsoft became one of the largest monopolies because of their ability to be in almost every trade that had use of a computer system.This was a great involvement for Microsoft and for users but it was to a fault a bad thing for users as well. Since the market was so unregulated it would allow Microsoft to not produce a quality product. This was allowed because of their monopoly. This monopoly would be out of the control of the government because breaking up the Microsoft Company into little companies would only cause damage to the consumer. In this I remember you the consumer would have to purchase multiple operating systems in order to maintain computer interacti ng standards. This would not be the best interest of either the government or the consumer.So unfortunately this monopoly would be allowed to carry on its position in the computer operating fields. Just think by chance that the government did break this monopolistic company up? This would allow so many small companies to produce the same product under the same outdated set of rules. So question, if the same set of bendable rules applied what would stop those small broken up companies from befitting a monopoly as well? Exactly nothing. So the government sees it make better for consumers to have to deal with one monopoly comp atomic crook 18d to multiple.A company kindred Microsoft falls into a classification of a large monopoly. There are many smaller monopolies that go un pick upd. Some of these companies are Nike, Reebok, revolutionary Balance, etc. You may hear close to some of these companies monopolistic traits, but choose not to pay much attention because they are not as large as a company as Microsoft. Lets face it we melt d knowledge to have a thought that they are just brands. Just a thought, when you walk into your local sell store are you looking for a pair of shoes or a certain room of shoe by name (i. e.Nike Jordans, Converse All-Stars or commonly known as chuck taylors, Reebok Zigtechs, New Balance 855s)?These are the monopolies we do not pay much attention too because they are in the main companies that are in deep competition with one another. In order to compete in their individual fields the company must make a shoe or an article of clothing that is rum whether it carries a label or not. So what exactly makes Microsoft a monopoly instead of a emulous market? Since Microsoft is the only producer in the operating system market it has the ability to set and stay with its own equipment casualty.Microsoft in recent years have gained a few other competitors that are making their counseling up the ladder with free trial periods or jus t general free use with things like email, face engines, and veritable(a) software purchases through computer brands, printers, etc. A common name that we all use on practically a daily basis is Google. Google Inc. has won a growing number of customers for its Google Apps software, a collection of word processing, email, spreadsheet and other tools that are hosted and accessed online.The company is also reportedly preparing an expansion of its solutions marketplace, to sell software to businesses that can augment Apps. When confronted with questions of their products, an all too modest Google made no response. Unlike Microsoft, Google tends to not make broad promises of software updates until they have perfected the process. This is what commonly makes Google a most used search engine. Google also offers Gmail which carries its own form of complete virus software which sets it in a field of its own unlike Yahoo mail that only offers a low version of spyware with a premium story p urchase.Other competitive companies that are climbing on the Microsoft ladder are Oracle Corp. and LotusLive iNotes. When Microsoft was confronted if any of these companies were the indicate behind the downed sales agreements of their Microsoft Office version they replied with it is unclear if they had a hand in the matter. This is another giant headed response because Microsoft does not want to even think at this time that they could possibly have competition. When a monopolistic company is confronted with competition you will usually see a drop in product charges that may or may not go unnoticed.It is my opinion that this competitive edge brought to Microsoft will not go unnoticed. With the growing state of these other companies, I cannot wait until Microsoft has to become a competitive market instead of a monopoly. Another way to tell whether a company is a monopoly or not, is to check its revenue. Since a company like Microsoft does not have their books out their like publi c records, we have to keep up media theories and articles. When you see an increase in the company revenue this means that their output has went up. This means that they are producing much and making more because the demand has gotten higher.When revenue has dropped then the company has lost money and no semipermanent producing because the demand has dropped. All too commonly you may see a drop in price because the company is wanting to sell their items rather than taking a complete loss on them. The will also set their prices above marginal cost. This will tend to be a seasonal thing because annually they try to place newer products on the market. Now noticing that other companies like Windows, Macintosh, and Linux are in competition with Microsoft is a vast deal to us as the consumer. To Microsoft this is no real better-looking threat because of the huge market share that they own.This allows a monopolistic company to carry on their threat of being the big man on the block. In this I mean that they are allowed to place what seems to be ridiculous price because they do not see the competition as a true competitor. Consumers frequently take notice to this when they are in the market for the produced good of computer systems. Consumers commonly watch for the better deals charm taking name brand and off brand into high consideration. Even though Sony may be the better brand, it is possible that Acer could sell more because of the consumers desire to pay less and receive more.This is just the way that things go in a time of economic struggle. The only time that things like this change is if the consumer has a specific desire for a certain brand over the lesser price. So as a monopoly could Microsoft force these other competitive companies out of their market? Yes they could and it has been accused that they have in the past. To include the list of companies that Microsoft has bought out in order to maintain at the top would be completely ridiculous but to name a few would be ok.Microsoft has purchased companies like Skype, Nokia, and of course we all heard of the Microsoft-Apple buy out in order to stop them from sinking. There is a lot of talk near what should be through to the Microsoft Company with the Department of Justice, Attorney Generals, and Microsoft. Many think that breaking the company up would be a mistake while a majority agree that it would also make them list a fairer price and focus on a better product. This in my opinion is not to the judgment of anyone. Is Microsoft vilify for being the best in their business?In my opinion, absolutely not. It is at the decision of the other competitive companies whether to stay in or back out. Many people think that the treatment they receive while purchasing items from the producer is unfair. I would like to disagree because if you need the item bad enough then whatever dollar amount the producer places is the dollar amount the consumer will pay. Take ball up for instance, when gas was hitting its record highs two years ago. All I heard were complaints of how ridiculous it was, we should petition, protest, or even not purchase for days.Where were their complaints when they were driving to McDonalds to get a burger instead of cooking at home? battalion only complain about the abuse that they cannot control. This is the same with items like the personal computer. Everyone wants to complain about the price they paid for their computer but not the eBay items they are purchasing while they use that same computer. This reminds me of a conversation between the course instructor and myself. He asked one time if there was a sale on hamburger at the store but you really wanted steak which would you choose?I replied with I am going to choose steak because it is what I want. I chose this answer because regardless of the price of hamburger if I want steak, then ultimately steak is what I will get. This is my choice. I choose to not complain about the items that I can not control because at the end of the day I still need it. So in conclusion, if you ask me if Microsoft is a monopoly or not, my answer will still remain yes and no. Yes, because they are the capital holders of operating systems and they are getting filthy rich. No, because they have made themselves the best.If the other companies want to be on top then they need to fight to be on top. But also in the mean time they shouldnt complain about the actions that Microsoft takes in order to remain the best.References Mankiw, N. G. (2012, 2009). Principles of Microeconomics (Sixth ed. ). Mason, OH South-Western Cengage Learning. Mankiw (2012, 2009) Fisher, G. A. (2000, May 30). Why is Microsoft a Monopoly? Retrieved May 21, 2012, from http//www. zaimoni. com/George/MicrosoftMonopoly. htmFisher (2000) South-Western College Publishing (2003). Is Microsoft a Monopoly? Retrieved May 21, 2012, from http//www.swcollege. com/bef/policy_debates/microsoft. htmlSouth-Western College Publishing (2003 ) ThisNation. com (2008). Is Microsoft a monopoly?If so, why does it matter? Retrieved May 21, 2012, from http//www. thisnation. com/questions/027. htmlThisNation. com (2008) Albro, E. N. (2007). eighter Years Later, Is Microsoft Still a Monopoly? Retrieved May 21, 2012, from http//www. pcworld. com/printable/article/id,139458/printable. htmlAlbro (2007) Jackson, E. Forbes (2012, March 1). Steve Jobs Used Patents to Get Bill Gates to Make 1997 Investment in Apple. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from.