Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Michael W. Jackson
A02-92-6779
Warren 11B
1 February 2000
computing public of the United States is one of disgust and disapproval of an industry
leader with what appears to be endless wealth. This is a common feeling shared not
only by the consumer but as well by the computing industry, which must devote many
of its resources to competing with Microsoft in hopes of besting the prominent leader
not allow any competition to challenge its power. The development of Microsoft's
current position in the computing industry, however, is not the result of monopolistic
sentiments comparable to that of the robber barons of the latter nineteenth century but
in fact a result of the unique dynamic of the computer industry itself. The factors that
form this dynamic are intellectual property, rapid change in product requirements, and
The first distinct component of the computer industry dynamic is the unlimited
conferred by this statement is that a monopoly such as Standard Oil had a finite
product (oil) to control whereas the scope of the human mind is limitless. The
computer industry is one in which the next great advancement is just over the horizon.
JACKSON 2
The distinction that needs to be made between the products of the digital era and the
robber baron period are quite heterogeneous. The product of oil is something that no
matter who owns it can not vary in any great detail and to be successful with such a
and the distinction is made that many companies can provide a wide variety of
programs for a computer where as oil can make only a limited number of products.
Intellectual property furthers the difference between a monopoly of today and one in
the pre-digital era. With respect to Microsoft one is able to view the necessity of an
industry leader to have a work policy of "sit and think" (Stross 17). This policy is a
necessity as it promotes the true development of ideas that seem impossible but
become a reality in a matter of years. A prime example of this is a move from a user-
The second factor of the computer industry is the rapid change inherent in its
progress and the subsequent need to maintain innovation. The computer industry
was a relatively new field in the 1970's and 1980's; however, in the time between
those two decades a move from computers and operating systems to compute basic
comparison to achieve such goals would have had to move from the model T to a
2000 Crown Victoria in a period of ten years instead of ninety. The computer industry
and its innovations have been greatly aided by a set system of standards that have
allowed the idea of compatibility to reign as a motive force for progress. "Architectural
(Chang 1). The success of Microsoft can be contributed to the selection of DOS as
the operating system of the first IBM personal computers (Chang 1). The industry,
however, does not remain static as is proposed by Moore's Law. Moore's Law states
that the processing speed of chips of a given cost will double every 18 months (Egan
3). This is a direct factor on the development of software as the speed at which the
chip can process information faster and faster brings more and more of society's
information processing tasks within the feasible range of the computer (Egan 3).
Microsoft gained market share with DOS; it however did not sit back and rest on this
success, as it was clear that newer and more advanced software was necessary to
achieve success in the rapidly changing computer industry. The placement of DOS
does provide Microsoft a dominant position in the field of operating systems however
OS/2. This program however did not gain consumer demand and subsequently
feedback cycle (Stross 185). This cycle states that consumers will gain acceptance of
a product and in turn continue to support that product even when there may be a
product of greater value present in the market (i.e. consumer loyalty). The computer
and software industry is constantly changing and it is only through innovation that
The final factor of the computer industry that is responsible for Microsoft's
monopoly appears to go against the commonly held opinion that in a monopoly there
JACKSON 4
is no competition present. This would hold true in reference to the robber baron
period with such companies as Standard Oil but in a market of ever-present change it
is seen that the monopolist is truly an industry leader. Armstrong substantiates this
Microsoft is but the industry leader that is continually challenged to maintain its
has been such companies as Netscape, Intuit, Oracle, IBM, Sun Microsystems, and
Lotus. These companies all have versions of widely accepted computer applications
assistant, and web browser. This competition resides considerably in the personal
computer domain in which Microsoft has its considerable advantage. This realm,
however, is not the full extent of this industry as it branches into servers, networks,
and mainframes in the business sector. Microsoft has a clear monopoly or industry
degree but by no means controls the entire industry. The success of Microsoft is
competitive industry.
JACKSON 5
market share as the industry leader. Bill Gates himself expresses this sentiment more
succinctly when he states, " I really shouldn't say this, but in some ways [the way the
monopoly" (Stross 185). The issue at hand is that a monopoly in this industry is a
good force to maintain challenging competition to keep producing better and better
determined the difference between these two companies as stemming from their effect
on the consumer. When a monopoly had a beneficial effect it was deemed worthy and
was left untouched by Roosevelt however when a company was deemed harmful to
the public it was disbanded. With this insight it is clear that Microsoft's dominate
company, at the head of an industry, which is deemed to proceed unlike any other in
history and have the possibilities for exponential growth. This growth possibility of this
industry leaves clear room for a new industry juggernaut, but in the true spirit of
imagination.
JACKSON 6
Works Cited
Institute, 1982.
Chang, Ike Y. Jr. The Economics of Dominant Technical Architecture: The Case
http://brie.berkeley.edu/~briewww/pubs/wp/wp87.html, 01/28/2000.
Company, Inc.,1996.