Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: monopoly vs. standardization

  1. #1

    Default monopoly vs. standardization

    Where is the line between monopoly and standardization?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Utah, USA, Earth, Milky Way
    Posts
    7,511
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    To me a monopoly is where one entity controls the situation and others can't make a difference. Standardization is where multiple entities cooperate and make sure things play nice together.
    My computer always used to beat me at chess, but it is no match for me since I changed the competition to kick boxing

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    24

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    I would agree wholeheartedly with Kgroneman.

    I would also add that monopoly capital tries to justify itself and it's "necessary" existence because "products need to be standardized" and "we are the only ones who can get it done right."

    -joe
    "I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man, like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand." --Bob Dylan

  4. #4
    Rikishi 42 NNTP User

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    On 2008-06-12, Neophyte42 <Neophyte42@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
    >
    > Where is the line between monopoly and standardization?


    They both create a unique way of realising something.



    Monopoly:
    - they own it, can make other's pay for it
    - they design it alone (faster, but limited set of ideas)
    - they can change it, at will

    Standard:
    - nobody owns it, so it's available to everyone
    - design by compromise (slow, but sometimes better)
    - the product must keep to certain rules, unless all agree



    --
    The sand remembers once there was beach and sunshine
    but chip is warm too
    -- haiku from Effector Online, Volume 1, Number 6

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    Quote Originally Posted by jmat1960 View Post
    I would agree wholeheartedly with Kgroneman.

    I would also add that monopoly capital tries to justify itself and it's "necessary" existence because "products need to be standardized" and "we are the only ones who can get it done right."

    -joe
    I would contend that monopolies are not always evil and/or bad. I would also contend that you can stifle competition and be an evil corporation without being an monopoly.

    In every single place I've lived, there has been one provider for each major utility. Often several utilities (water, gas, sewer, etc) come from one utility. These are monopolies, and yet few complain. It doesn't make sense to have multiple gas infrastructures in one city. Natural monopolies should be monitored and regulated to keep prices fair.

    Back in the day airlines were regulated as well, because some industries are **** near impossible to break into without some serious dough. Many argue that government should stay away from business, but the airline industry has been going downhill steadily since deregulation. On principle, I do support a smaller government, yet I'm left to wonder if there are markets where heavy government regulation is necessary, especially when no, or little competition exists.

    For instance, there are very few oil companies in the US. The big boys are reporting record profits every single quarter, topping the previous quarter. Yet they insist they have no choice but to raise prices. It seems scary to have the government interfere with industry, and some would contend a US corporation making massive profits is a good thing for the economy on the whole, but I'd argue that the entire economy is driven on some small part by the price of oil in this country. One could argue that such an industry should be heavily regulated by the government.

    What do you guys think?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    UTC+10
    Posts
    9,686
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    Well you have opened a whole new bag of worms talking about oil. First of all in nearly all countries, oil company means oil importing company since it's probably the case now that that there is only a handful of net oil exporting country and the most significant is Saudi Arabia.

    If you want to be scared about the future of oil powered society, read Simmons' Twilight in the Desert (which is actually quite a technical book, and not a doomsday or greenie book, don't recall seeing global warming mentioned anywhere in it), proposing the case that SA oil is peaking or has peaked and that we had better find alterternatives in a world where too many users are chasing too little oil.

    If nothing else reading it will dispel the common notion that you just need to poke a hole in the ground at the right spot and pure oil will gush out. Oil extraction is a very complex affair.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    Quote Originally Posted by ken_yap View Post
    Well you have opened a whole new bag of worms talking about oil. First of all in nearly all countries, oil company means oil importing company since it's probably the case now that that there is only a handful of net oil exporting country and the most significant is Saudi Arabia.

    If you want to be scared about the future of oil powered society, read Simmons' Twilight in the Desert (which is actually quite a technical book, and not a doomsday or greenie book, don't recall seeing global warming mentioned anywhere in it), proposing the case that SA oil is peaking or has peaked and that we had better find alterternatives in a world where too many users are chasing too little oil.

    If nothing else reading it will dispel the common notion that you just need to poke a hole in the ground at the right spot and pure oil will gush out. Oil extraction is a very complex affair.
    We do have major oil corporations in the US. They make money refining oil and selling it for ever increasing record profits, while the economy of the US is suffering due to rising gas costs.

    We do also extract oil in the US, but we sell that off.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    UTC+10
    Posts
    9,686
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    Sure, but shaving the oil company profits may bring prices down but it is merely ignoring (perhaps bringing forward) the inevitable exhaustion of oil. So while the oil importers are hated messengers, there is a message underlying.

    As Simmons points out, there isn't just one oil market, there are various sectors for light, heavy, etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that most countries are net importers.

    In case you think new technologies will come to the rescue, that is discussed too. Things like "superstraws" just suck up the recoverable oil much faster. Eventually in order to get the remaining oil, more and more expensive technologies have to be brought in, or currently infeasible sources tapped, which adds to the cost of course. If nothing that makes alternative energy sources more competitive.

    And if people thought that just oil comes up, the water cut can be as bad as 10 times more water than oil. Why water? They inject water underground to maintain enough pressure to get adequate flow. It doesn't just spurt out.

    Next in line: CO2 injection, which helps oil flow better. More infrastructure to produce the massive amounts of CO2, i.e more cost.

    That bicycle is looking good.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    423

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    This is a good topic idea. Kudos on it. Without getting too deep into it, each has a benefit on their own level. Monopoly is independent and does not need to be supported by any other outside source. In the case of economic monopoly, this can get out of hand, controlling everything in every step of the process. This just strangled anyone looking to start their own business in the same area as a monopoly. In the other case, standardization is good because the more input you get, the better the company or product will be. Plus, each person/company can work specifically on one step of the process, putting all their strengths together, rather than just merging the steps into 1 long process.

    For companies like Novell, I like the idea of standardization. It allows for cooperative licensing and makes the experience better for users like us. Even though many of the programs we use in OpenSUSE are not 1st party applications per-say, the 3rd party applications are made by companies that specialize in creating these programs. IE: Gimp from GNU. The best part of this cooperation is the easy in adding hardware and applications to SUSE. Rather than having companies playing keep-away with each other, they share the products they make, giving the user the best experience.

    So in short, I would take standardization over a monopoly in almost every case. I just like the idea of cooperation between different companies to put the best and most complete product on the market they can, rather than hiding their products.

    It's actually a really good topic because of what's going on in the market right now...not the oil, but the proposed merger between Sirius and XM satellite radio companies. I think the FCC still needs to decide if they can both merge before one or the other goes down the drain. The problem is that they are the only companies of their type, so people wonder if they will become a modern monopoly. Thought it fit just right in this idea.

    As for the bike idea: Gas mileage of a bike - ∞

    Folding@Home
    Help save lives with Folding@Home

  10. #10

    Default Re: monopoly vs. standardization

    I heard about the Sirius / xM merger talks last night. A major consumer protection lobbying group is claiming that a regulated monopoly now would be better than a monopoly later due to one of the companies failing.

    The bike wouldn't be feasible for my 40 or my wife's 60 mile commutes.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •