Just because competitors do exist, doesn't mean much. example: There are competitors to Youtube, yet they raise Youtube premium prices and go after ad blockers and get away with it. I assume it's ultamately to make money back from Youtube tv price hiles from disney content such as nfl. I do hope it's not just to rack in more cash just because they can, but that's another possibility too.
If Rumble raised their prices, they would go out of business, while Youtube would not be as heavily impacted. If it's determined in court to not be a monopoly, there's some kind of illegal behavior going on pottentially and that's what they are trying to figure out in court.
Why don't people make more commercial products too compete. No one seems to do that anymore. to be clear i'm talking make their own commercial operating system, their own PC, and smartphone lineup.
Come on Duckduckgo there's your chance to shine if you're really not just secretly a part of Microsoft in disguise.
Because it is incredibly expensive and risky to compete in the service market.
Software has been giving way to service revenue for awhile. Both Android and SteamOS are based on Linux, and Android without Googlr has been used to create phones.
Hardware has notoriously thin margins, with non-flagship equipment being really cheap. Hardware margins are so thin that a lot of hardware manufacturers now rely on service providers to subsidize their work.
If you just simply make an operating system, that alone would increase competition. The thing is, people don't go to Linux when they do think of alternatives they go to mac, you need more commercial oses, that's why apple is number two on most used operating systems on PC.
If you just simply make an operating system, that alone would increase competition.
Would it? An OS by itself that doesn't have anything to run has little value. The whole reason Microsoft got its monopoly was because it became the standard for most desktop software.
I think so, the reason why Linux isn't as successful even though it's free is because it is complex. With Windows, you just buy a windows. WIth apple you just buy a Mac.
with Nintendo, you just buy a Nintendo. With Linux, you gotta know how to hack your computer and you got to pick a distro. (i'm exaggerating a little on the hacking part, but that's how people see it.)
Or maybe we could get a centralised open sourced os that does not have anything to do with Linux, since that's being took over by Microsoft and other investors in the Linux foundation anyways that have been known to use Macs themselves. Just for the sake of simplicity and competition that actual works for people.
Just because competitors do exist, doesn't mean much. example: There are competitors to Youtube, yet they raise Youtube premium prices and go after ad blockers and get away with it. I assume it's ultamately to make money back from Youtube tv price hiles from disney content such as nfl. I do hope it's not just to rack in more cash just because they can, but that's another possibility too.
If Rumble raised their prices, they would go out of business, while Youtube would not be as heavily impacted. If it's determined in court to not be a monopoly, there's some kind of illegal behavior going on pottentially and that's what they are trying to figure out in court.
Why don't people make more commercial products too compete. No one seems to do that anymore. to be clear i'm talking make their own commercial operating system, their own PC, and smartphone lineup.
Come on Duckduckgo there's your chance to shine if you're really not just secretly a part of Microsoft in disguise.
Because it is incredibly expensive and risky to compete in the service market.
Software has been giving way to service revenue for awhile. Both Android and SteamOS are based on Linux, and Android without Googlr has been used to create phones.
Hardware has notoriously thin margins, with non-flagship equipment being really cheap. Hardware margins are so thin that a lot of hardware manufacturers now rely on service providers to subsidize their work.
If you just simply make an operating system, that alone would increase competition. The thing is, people don't go to Linux when they do think of alternatives they go to mac, you need more commercial oses, that's why apple is number two on most used operating systems on PC.
Would it? An OS by itself that doesn't have anything to run has little value. The whole reason Microsoft got its monopoly was because it became the standard for most desktop software.
I think so, the reason why Linux isn't as successful even though it's free is because it is complex. With Windows, you just buy a windows. WIth apple you just buy a Mac. with Nintendo, you just buy a Nintendo. With Linux, you gotta know how to hack your computer and you got to pick a distro. (i'm exaggerating a little on the hacking part, but that's how people see it.)
Or maybe we could get a centralised open sourced os that does not have anything to do with Linux, since that's being took over by Microsoft and other investors in the Linux foundation anyways that have been known to use Macs themselves. Just for the sake of simplicity and competition that actual works for people.