The assumption of monopoly is the core of the model of monopolistic competition. We assume that we are all in competition with each other, so that means we make assumptions.
Although the monopolist is very likely to make assumptions that are wrong, that doesn’t mean they are wrong. Even though the monopolist is making wrong assumptions about competition, they are not necessarily wrong. The monopolist is not necessarily wrong in their assumption of competition. They are wrong only in their assumption of monopolistic competition.
When you think of a monopolist, you are probably thinking of a company, or person, that has an exclusive or dominant position in its market. However, that is not how monopolies work.
The world of software is a huge place, and competition is going to be a big part of that market. Software is the greatest game in the universe, and as a result, it is the most competitive. But the market is also a huge place. If you can run software for a few hours and beat the competition, it will beat the competition for a few years, and then you can beat the competition for one year.
That’s why the monopolist is usually a bad guy. Like the guy who owns a small, rural town, the monopoly can be a villain. But the monopolist also knows that the competition is going to be tough. So it looks for the most efficient way to get the benefits it is getting from its monopoly and then tries to sell that to the public. It’s going to put pressure on its competitors. In the case of software, this is the internet.
The internet is a great example of monopolistic competition. When web browsers come out with better browsers, the browsers are doing the monopoly’s bidding. It’s like the guy who owns your phone company is doing all of the monopoly’s bidding. The phone company knows its competitors are going to be cheap with their phones, so it looks for the cheapest solution to that problem.
In the case of software, there are many examples of monopolistic competition. When Microsoft and Apple get together in the 1980s, they were both trying to dominate the PC market. They both had different ideas and different business models, so they had to compete with each other. The computer market was still relatively new during that time, so consumers were still getting their computers for free, and it was a good price for an operating system. The operating system was the product, not the hardware.
If you think of two companies with the same product, they can usually do pretty good business. But if you think of those companies as two different markets, you can have a monopoly on the first, and then you’ve got a monopoly on the second. And that is exactly what software companies like Microsoft and Apple did in the 1980s. They were trying to create two “monopolies”, and when they did it, they created two completely different markets.
Yes, the operating system was the product, not the hardware. This is why the operating system was the product even in the late 1980s, before personal computers were invented. In the late 80s, computers weren’t even that popular, so the operating system had to be a game changer. But like Microsoft and Apple, the operating system also was a monopoly in the early 1990s. It was like the two companies were trying to monopolize the market for the software on computer systems.
Apple was in a lot of ways an exception to this. Its operating system wasnt a monopoly and its users didnt have to be locked into a single use. Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system, but its users didnt have to use the same software for each individual computer system they owned.
