Its not a monopoly at all for a software maker to buy a hardware manufacturer or use them exclusively, see Apple for example, although Apple doesnt manufacture or own any hardware makers to my knowledge, they do prettymuch own and control the rights to the PPC chips they use.They also prettymuch control Adobe to a large degree.Some of the arguments mentioned above while picking nits so to speak, are picking the wrong nits.Microsoft like AMD and Intel are publicly traded companies, they have one responsibility and one responsibilty only, make $$ for their shareholders.
Windows desktop OS doesnt run on any architecture other than x86.They do already have essentially a monopoly, and they use it to.This is why theyve had so many antitrust suits, however, the FTC has been known on many occasions to overlook alot of mergers that technically violate antitrust laws, they might not stop something like microsoft buying a hardware maker.Microsoft has a huge on hand cash balance, as a major corporation thats not good, $$ does better when invested in order to make more $$, thats how you leverage things and turn a profit and promote growth.
The life cycle of windows as we know it is being threatened on many fronts, some of that is just due to fact that longhorn is taking sooooooooo long to come out and hardware is advancing way faster than they can keep up with, at some point microsoft will have to make some tough choices, if they dont someone else steps in and provides what they cant.If hardware becomes a cheap off the shelf commodity which is the way its looking, why would someone pay $100 for an OS to put in a machine that costs $75-$100?Especially if others offer it for free?
Of course its all just speculation, but I think its interesting to think about anyway.
Windows desktop OS doesnt run on any architecture other than x86.They do already have essentially a monopoly, and they use it to.This is why theyve had so many antitrust suits, however, the FTC has been known on many occasions to overlook alot of mergers that technically violate antitrust laws, they might not stop something like microsoft buying a hardware maker.Microsoft has a huge on hand cash balance, as a major corporation thats not good, $$ does better when invested in order to make more $$, thats how you leverage things and turn a profit and promote growth.
The life cycle of windows as we know it is being threatened on many fronts, some of that is just due to fact that longhorn is taking sooooooooo long to come out and hardware is advancing way faster than they can keep up with, at some point microsoft will have to make some tough choices, if they dont someone else steps in and provides what they cant.If hardware becomes a cheap off the shelf commodity which is the way its looking, why would someone pay $100 for an OS to put in a machine that costs $75-$100?Especially if others offer it for free?
Of course its all just speculation, but I think its interesting to think about anyway.
