0
0

[–] SteelKidney ago 

oligopolies are able to crush any new competition before it gains any steam.

These aren't new issues either. IBM tried to stifle new competition for PC manufacturing by trying to keep anyone else from creating a BIOS. And now, IBM doesn't even make PCs. They haven't for years. The marketing term "IBM Compatible" makes no sense because they got so thoroughly smoked by the competitive market. Microsoft tried their hardest to keep only their OS on manufactured computers and we see how well that went. And now, carriers are losing their grip on the smartphone market. It's becoming easier to buy unlocked smartphones and OEMs aren't bound nearly as strongly by carrier rules than they used to be. Little remembered factoid. Up until Apple pressured AT&T into caving, smartphones weren't allowed to have a full browser because the carriers didn't want it. Go back in time a bit and the first data-enabled PDAs that could do more than a POP pull for email were charged far more heavily by carriers.

I'm concentrating on tech industries because that's what I'm most familiar with, but it's also there for alcohol. Due to more readily available equipment, microbrews are taking off. Macrobrews like Anheuser Busch put a lot of money into making sure that the definition of "microbrew" limits production size. Despite that, the production limit to be considered a "microbrew" keeps rising.

I'm not saying that large companies never eliminate competition. you only have to look at Comcast and Time Warner to see that it still happens. But look at Wal-Mart and Amazon. Both of which are, paradoxically, called "monopolies". Despite the fact that they compete in many areas of retail. However, there's a new market that has been created as a direct result of those companies. The push for things like "Whole Foods" and to smaller, more specialized, retailers is because of the mistrust in very large retailers.

Competition isn't perfect, but no system is. However, it works because when large companies try to control the market, new markets emerge. Apple exists because of Microsoft. Android exists because of the iPhone. OnePlus and BlackPhone exist because of Android- despite Google's attempts to control Android. And because of all that, Microsoft and BlackBerry are stepping up their game. Will they be successful? Depends on how well they identify new ways of competing. Microsoft competes by pitching the "all in one" platform. BlackBerry competes in device and data security. Consumers will decide if these are important aspects of the market.

0
0

[–] TheBrokenWorld ago 

You're looking at competition within the oligopolies, and you're focusing on areas that are fairly inconsequential. I'm talking about new competition in high technology areas. New competition is extremely rare because the initial cost of developing a competitive product in a society as advanced as ours is enormous, and most of the people who have the financial means to start new companies are already heavily involved in the oligopolies and don't want to risk their wealth on something that might not be successful. Microsoft and Apple are not likely to be challenged any time soon, the currently established automotive brands aren't likely to be challenged anytime soon, heavy aircraft manufacturers, oil and energy companies, aircraft engine manufacturers.... I'm really tired, but the list goes on.

The best example of this that I know of is light aircraft engines. Those engines have hardly changed in over 50 years, because the cost of developing and certifying a new piston aircraft engine is insanely high. There was a company just recently who had finished the certification process and mysteriously had their funding cut once they were ready to go into production, and they had an awesome engine design, it was better than existing aircraft engines in nearly every way possible. There is no way for new players to join the game.

0
0

[–] SteelKidney ago 

and you're focusing on areas that are fairly inconsequential

I'm not sure of a definition of "inconsequential" that fits the way technology has risen.

New competition is extremely rare because the initial cost of developing a competitive product in a society as advanced as ours is enormous, and most of the people who have the financial means to start new companies are already heavily involved in the oligopolies and don't want to risk their wealth on something that might not be successful

Every VC in existence disagrees with this. By definition- if they considered this true they wouldn't be involved in venture capitalism. Or, I suppose, they could just suck at being VCs. Mark Cuban, however, takes absolutely the opposite view and invests heavily in startups and new ideas. "Shark Tank" may be heavily staged, but the companies that are formed are real. Cuban has said that he's invested in 71 companies through the show and that about 60 of them are financially successful.

Microsoft and Apple are not likely to be challenged any time soon

Google disagrees. And the rise of ChromeOS, Google Docs, and Android tablets seems to confirm that people are responding well to that challenge.

the currently established automotive brands aren't likely to be challenged anytime soon,

Elon Musk might take exception to this idea. Tesla isn't important enough yet to be a real threat, but the prices are coming down and the quality is improving. He's building a solid foundation for a real threat to the established automotive companies.

Sure- there are industries where disruptive changes are less likely. Cable TV is another example- I keep going on about that one because the deal Comcast and Time Warner gets seems so obviously wrong to me that I don't understand why it's allowed.

On the other hand, how long is it going to be before an MVNO makes a serious bid on some cellular frequencies of their own? Don't know, but since the idea was rare even 5 years ago and unheard of 10 years ago, I'm not willing to predict that they've somehow capped their growth.