Lots of posts are arguments about the "way things should be" in the computer industry. Is it right to be a Monopoly? Can you outsource jobs to another country? How much testing and design should you do? Etc. ALL of these arguments are irrelevant. The only thing that matters in every case is "consumer voting." If you do something that the consumer likes, you get to stay in business, if you do something stupid, you’re gone. Therefore any company that is still in business is, by definition, doing the right thing. People keep saying that the government should make big changes, but I live in America, where the government is elected by the same people who buy products. Why do you expect people to vote one way with their wallet and another way at the polls? Every problem I've seen argued here comes down to your disagreement with the average citizen, NOT business practices, NOT government.
Monopolies, by their very nature, do not allow people to vote. Left to their own devices, they will dictate what you can have and when and how. They exercise control over the market. The market does not control them. So in rather short order, they lose all incentive to innovate and lapse into protecting their dominant position at all costs.
Fine, since we're back to the Monoploy argument, I'm going to claim that that really only matters when a company provides a essential service. When the anti-trust laws were first written, they were because companies were doing "bad things" that people had to put up with to live a normal life (and gee, these laws where written because of consumer pressure, so my argument stands). Even if MS somehow makes it so you CANNOT buy any computer w/o their stuff they cannot win without consumer support. Here's where I'm going out on a limb (even though I am a CS junkie); computers are not essential to life so MS can only do this because people LET THEM.
Fog Creek Home