• explodicle@local106.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where have you heard that a monopoly can be more beneficial than harmful because of standardization? Has that happened with any other monopolies?

    • porkins@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s common sense. If you have hundreds of operating systems, then it becomes a pain to get the right software. First, developers are discouraged because they don’t know what platform will be best to develop on and users will be discouraged because they might need to install twenty different OS partitions in order to run the software they want to run.

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No offense but no it is not common sense. The economics of monopolies have been studied for centuries, including any benefit from standardization (like with Standard Oil). It creates a costly deadweight loss.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_and_efficiency

        For what it’s worth I was there, and the handful of OSes in the 1980s (not 20) weren’t as problematic as the monopoly later. It seems like common sense to me that today’s multiple browsers are better than IE standardization was.