(Replying to PARENT post)

A nice concrete example of the principle that companies cannot manipulate the market in the long run.
๐Ÿ‘คjavert๐Ÿ•‘13y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Well, two points here.

First, Microsoft has had to play pretty carefully in the past decade to make sure that they don't draw any more antitrust ire.

The other thing would be that they don't have to manipulate the market forever, just long enough to lock out competition.

A perfect example of this in the tech world would be Intel.

They did everything they could to keep AMD locked out of vendors like Dell for years, even when AMD had a superior product. Fast forward a few years, and not only is Intel still the dominate player in the market, but their lead in process technology makes it extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone else to compete. For example, Ivy Bridge has a slightly higher transistor count than AMD's Bulldozer, but has a die roughly half the size of the AMD part.[1] That means that even if AMD was producing a part that performs competitively with Intel, they're going to have difficulty competing with them on price since Intel can crank out more dies per wafer.

Obviously it's entirely speculative whether AMD would have been able to capitalize on increased market share and keep up with Intel long term but Intel doesn't really need to manipulate the market like they used to anymore since they've managed to put themselves in such a comfortably entrenched position.

[1] - http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core...

๐Ÿ‘คcommandar๐Ÿ•‘13y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Or an example of seeing what you want to see.

Microsoft still has an effective desktop OS monopoly. Last I bought a computer, I still had to pay a Windows tax. So their long-run market manipulation seems to be alive and well.

It's true that they haven't been able to dominate new markets effectively. But that says more about the volatility of technology and Microsoft's fear of another Department of Justice beat-down than it does about any principle of economics.

The Internet was a once-a-century disruption. (One that could well have been throttled in its cradle had AT&T not been broken up by government intervention.) Counting on lightning strikes like that, rather than robust regulatory support of competition, strikes me more as a religious outlook than a practical one.

๐Ÿ‘คwpietri๐Ÿ•‘13y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0