Microsoft and Monopolies
Here is a letter published in Infoworld where a reader is unhappy with Microsoft's not fulfilling a request for a free upgrade when he submitted it too late. It would have been nice if Microsoft had accommodated, but someone somewhere decided to stick to the written rules instead of trying to help the guy.
Microsoft should have given him his upgrade, but that's not the point.
The article ends with this:
Sadly, MS once again made it all too clear they were more concerned about 'being right' than 'doing right.' That's the real cost of a monopoly."
Was this user forced to use Visio because he had no choice? No. He stated that he wanted to use Visio because he felt it was the best product. Apparently that's all it takes to be a monopoly these days.
When a company has a monopoly, it's supposed to mean that consumers have no choice. The power company has a monopoly, since there's only one power line running into your house. The cable company, the phone company, same deal.
Windows users have always had the choice to use another operating system. It's their own requirements (that they be able to exchange documents with other Windows users, that they be able to run Windows software) that have limited their choice.