Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market. Things such as forcing OEMs to not allow linux support, or banning iTunes installation on Windows. Simply being popular isn't the same as a monopoly.
Apple has, on the other hand, been monopolizing their iOS devices with the app store. It is the only way to install apps on iOS and Apple has played fast and loose with competitors (like Spotify) in the past: https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/03/eu-awaiting-apple-respo...
No. I think the distinction here is important and worth being mindful of.
Whether or not a company is abusing their monopoly position has no bearing on whether or not they are a monopoly. You can't abuse a monopoly position if you aren't a monopoly to begin with, after all.
The distinction is important because in the US it's perfectly legal to be a monopoly. What's illegal is the abuse of your monopoly position.
I think by any fair standard, Microsoft can be considered to have a monopoly in the desktop market, whether or not they're leveraging that monopoly in illegal ways.
This was as they were building up Exchange.
Everyone here who isn't talking about semantics is using the word monopoly to mean "abusive monopoly".
How? Lots of people I know use Macs, and developers/techie types frequently use Linux.
Windows is the most popular for some types of business, arguably most types, but it doesn't have a monopoly within the desktop space.
Monopolies are definitively the exclusive control or possession of the supply of the market. Just as a Monopsony is exclusive control or possession of the demand in a market. Microsoft has dominant market position but they do not control the entire supply of OS, hence they are the popular choice but not the exclusive choice.
Whether or not a monopoly is legal or illegal is non sequitur, since it doesn't apply in context here. There are plenty of legal, regional monopolies that benefit consumers from such regulation in utilities, but those are not tech markets.
"An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct." [1]
That's somewhat different from your definition in that it is deliberately open to interpretation (the Sherman Act, for instance, doesn't actually define monopoly) and revolves around anti-competitive conduct rather than exclusive control of supply (which isn't required - ex. Microsoft never had 100% of the OS market, nor did Standard Oil have 100% of the oil market).
The definition of the word "Monopoly" is already widely denoted as supply side control:
- Wikipedia: The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly)
- Investopedia: A monopoly exists when a single entity is the sole provider of a particular asset or service. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032415/whats-differ...)
- Oxford Dictionary: The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/monopoly)
That's obviously too narrow. Someone controlling the demand side could be just as obnoxious. A company in a company town is in control of the demand side of the labor market, for example.
Control of the demand side of a market is called a Monopsony, not Monopoly. It's mentioned in the thread above, more info here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp
I can’t think of any scenarios where people referred to the military as having a monopoly on the missile market. It doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t even make missiles.
But Farmers being ravaged by middlemen would use that term about the middlemen buying their crops.
Further, Oracle going for the API ruling means companies like them could monopolize at API level by making ports even riskier and costlier. Then, there's the interface look-and-feel which Apple likes suing over. That's at least three ways they can go after competitors.
You mean like when they actually did and got caught? I'm not sure I understand your take.
Apple isn’t forced to provide alternative app stores like hacker news isn’t forced to provide third-party plugin support support in their backend, and amazon isn’t forced to allow you to place arbitrary products on their market place. That’s not abuse of monopolies, that’s just having a product and deciding not to be as open some users or nonusers want them to be.
Now if Apple went and told app developers that they will not accept apps that have android versions on the App Store, that would be miss-use of their market position.(and their market position is not a monopoly, there are tons of competitors and Apple only has around 15% market share.)
MS still firmly monopolizes desktop OS (over 85% market share there). Sure, that market has lost weight due to the rise of mobile, but last I checked we're all still doing our day jobs on desktop computers, and for most office workers (who aren't developers), that's synonymous with working on a Windows machine. For 20-30 years people have had effectively no freedom to choose their OS and there's no change in sight.
Not sure why you're bringing Apple up since they never really were a monopoly. I don't think their very brief ownership of the smartphone and tablet market counts as a monopoly, that's just called being first to market.
I'm not American so I'm less acquainted with Walmart, but a quick Google search shows their stock isn't nosediving either.