Pseudo Monopolies

The author emphasizes the terms “precariousness” and “contestable” in an attempt to tell regulators and bureaucracies not to worry about Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or other tech companies becoming monopolies. The two reasons he offers are:

1. They cannot act as monopolies without the consumers responding. The “precariousness” aspect of the argument.

2. Other companies/businesses exist. The “contestable” aspect.

Tim Worstall states that if any of these businesses do reach the monopoly position, they will still need to consider their customers and how much they will be willing and able to pay. Precarious means not securely held in position-which describes the state of any business, but applies to the ones listed above.

He also notices that there are many other less commonly named businesses that at every moment are looking to compete against these top businesses, which is why Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook are unable to act as monopolies.

Comments (1)

Is Apple becoming the Microsoft of mobile?


After Apple issued a policy that Apple would only allow the iPhone OS apps which were required to be written in Apple-approved programming language. This claim from Apple obviously asserted that Apple had embarked on the journey to monopoly of this same kind of communication services. The rule effectively prevented other competing platforms including Android, Windows Mobile, and Palm’s Web OS to convert the apps that was written in a third-party code or program language, which made them impossible to compete with Apple. To link this news to our class topic, I would say that Apples’s new policy is a form of restriction that forbids other competitors to share the resource to create the apps, which yield a large amount of profit share to the OS apps service platforms. By monopolizing and controlling the resources to create the apps, Apple is clearly becoming a huge monopoly that dominate the OS apps service industry.


Francis, Zixian Lin

Comments (1)