Does Microsoft really have any monopolies? They have a big OS market share, but operating systems have become less and less relevant as mobile computing grows. Same deal with office.
Bing is nowhere near the market share as google. Azure competes with AWS and others. Xbox competes with Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft store competes with Steam. IE and edge are also being beaten by Chrome. I think the argument that Microsoft has a monopoly is much less feasible.
One acquaintance of mine that works at MS humorously remarked on the irony of situation along these lines, "Back in the day Microsoft was the Big Bad. But now we're not big in social media, we're not big in advertising or search. All these other companies are taking the heat now - not for our lack of trying to get into these spaces, though (laughs)."
Better product for sure. But that doesn't mean it's not a monopoly.
>That means Microsoft has a better product, that doesn't mean it's a monopoly.
Actually that's the text book definition of monopoly.
Monopolies are thus characterized by
* a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service - nobody else is making commercial spreadsheet tools
* a lack of viable substitute goods - all the other stuff (google sheets, openoffice) isn't workable in practice
* high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost - a MS office download costs MS near nothing...selling price is still sky-high.
There are crazy network effects at play which create near insurmountable barriers to entry. Another sure sign of a monopoly vulnerable to monopoly pricing/profits.
I've taken plenty of business law classes, and I've never heard such a thing in terms of what defines a monopoly. Your 1st point is debunked by your second point. Your 2nd point of "isn't workable in practice" is just bunk. For your third point, GSuite costs more per seat than O365 in some cases...so I don't even know what you're talking about.
Spreadsheets are becoming old tech as big data picks up, which is why you're seeing a split in the substitute products.
For smaller datasets, there's online solutions like Google Sheets and Airtable. For larger datasets, there's thousands of different databases that work better than Excel. Either way, consumers have options.
You're correct, but in this case it's clear Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on spreadsheets. They just make the best software. They aren't bashing vendors over the head with Excel, etc. IMO the case for Apple or Microsoft being monopolistic is pretty weak compared to Google, Facebook and perhaps Amazon. Apple has a problem because it's such a walled garden. Microsoft generally doesn't have any of the problems the FAANG (sans Netflix) companies have.
What's the difference between this and Google's "monopoly" on search, which is again based on a superior product (You could argue the same about Facebook, but at least in the search case, there's no network effects tying people to using Google).
Google doesn't have a monopoly on search - the supply for search engines has many equally accessible competitors supplying the market.
FB has a monopolistic-power in the network effects like you said, but even then entrants like Snapchat show that the network effects can be gained for new competitors.
This isn't comprehensive, but no one has really talked about Excel being unfairly leveraged to prevent the entry of competitors, gain an unfair advantage in unrelated markets, or exploit its consumers.
Now Google may not have done any of the above with search, but it's likely possible to argue that they have unfairly promoted their own products over others, or "unfairly" chose to not list certain websites.
Because Google removes consumer choice and forces vendors to play ball with its search platform on Android devices. Microsoft does not make you use Excel on Windows, iOS or Android. Google can cripple your entire company or industry by cutting APIs. You can't do that in Windows, even if Microsoft bans you from volume licensing, you can still install Windows on virtually any machine.
"First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way"
My office is on Google docs completely. No point in shelling out the $ for office when you get Google docs as part of enterprise gmail. Bear in mind that just because it has near 100% market share in specific fields doesn't mean it's got 100% market share in aggregate.
Bing is nowhere near the market share as google. Azure competes with AWS and others. Xbox competes with Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft store competes with Steam. IE and edge are also being beaten by Chrome. I think the argument that Microsoft has a monopoly is much less feasible.
One acquaintance of mine that works at MS humorously remarked on the irony of situation along these lines, "Back in the day Microsoft was the Big Bad. But now we're not big in social media, we're not big in advertising or search. All these other companies are taking the heat now - not for our lack of trying to get into these spaces, though (laughs)."