>falling for the shills and consumerism meme

>implying competition is an inherently good value
>implying a company wholly supplying all the demands of the market to the amount the market needs and the amount of business the market can support the industry to mutual satisfaction is a bad thing

It's very unlikely, and competition does generally exert a net positive influence, but nothing is inherently wrong with a "monopoly" in an environment where all political, forceful, barriers to entry have been removed.

If enough people are really pissed at how microsoft is running things yet can't stop buying their products and are willing to support an alternative themselves, you could fund it under that scenario.

>>51943113
no, faggot

>>51943176
>ms
>monopoly
It's not the nineties. Only thing they have monopoly now is desktops. As always capitalism won.

Not until the world frees itself from capitalism.

>>51943113
The alternative would be the military industrial complex and war.

So I hope not.

>>51943176
Microsoft lost it's monopoly long time ago SENPAI. The monopoly now is Google and Microsoft. Both of them tries to play nice howsoever

>>51943199
it was an example

>>51943176
But it is anon
>implying ms is monopoly now
>implying ms's monopoly seeking nature didn't kill it's creativity and innovation
>implying the post is about monopolism in general

>>51943113
Funny how all the corporations written on the car has become insignificient now.

>>51943176
>implying Microsoft is monopoly
>implying Microsoft didn't lost because it tried to kill all competition
>implying a single company will be able to meet the demands of all people
Great arguments there.I Enjoy your shitty outlook, edge and windows phone.

>Implying this isn't what the indestry is all about