begin oe_protect.scr
hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx <hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
> [...]
>> >> Competition, capitalism *is* the preferred model. However, microsoft
>> >> has achieved, effectively, total vendor lock-in across the board, thus
>> >> the finding that microsoft has monopoly power. Monopoly power is
>> >> american? Not in my america.
> [...]
>> The concept of a natural monopoly is what must be considered. Although
>> I've discovered here that this concept appears to have been politicised
>> in the US, rather like much science has been, however, the fundamental
>> requirements are:
>>
>> 1. An industry which has a limited userbase
>> 2. An industry which has an exceptionally high infrastructure cost
>> 3. An industry which has limited/capped income per user
>> 4. An industry which presents commodity items to the user
> [...]
>
> I think that it really has to do with barriers to entry (generally
> cost).
>
> It costs a fortune to build a power plant, and if there's an unused
> plant then it's almost a total write off, I'd imagine. There ain't
> room for two power plants in one small town :)
You're quite right. High infrastructure cost == barrier to entry. This
is only worthwhile getting over if the market will grow if you do it.
As you rightly point out, building a second power station merely halves
the number of customers for both, or alternatively, doubles the cost of
'leccy for everyone.
>
> Also, there's the cost of starting/stopping the power plant to factor
> in.
And maintenance and so on, as well.
>
> In software, the barriers to entry are different, which is where FUD
> comes in. Yes?
Fully agree. There are /still/ barriers to entry, but they're quite
different. The cost of setting up production is very low indeed - free
compiler/tool chain, 2nd-hand PC, network connection and you're off.
Creating complex software is more difficult, bu thte free software model
handles this well, as it shares the cost of development between multiple
parties. At the root of ESR's Cat and B paper is an unstated, but
underlying assumption, that the cost of entry for everyone is hugely
reduced if you share this cost. The only other cost for software is
maintenance, but again, the free software model handles this well, in
much the same way.
Another way of considering this from the economic viewpoint is that you
actually get economic scaling of software development and maintenance
by using free software.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
VMS must die!
|
|
