Right so I just installed MySpaceIM on top of the mIRC and Trillian that manages my AIM, Yahoo and MSN IM programmes. Thats 5 IMs and EZ-chat that I'll have. Does the world realy need that many (Iknow there more too). For some things a single consolodation wouldn't be a bad thing now would it?

So its a stupid rant but come on........And why is 'Planet of the Apes' on History Channel?

My belief ---> It's always good to have choices. Competition (in theory) should make the product better/cheaper.

What I don't like is when there are 5 products, and one or two companies own them all, know what I mean?

Generally speaking, monopolies are not a good thing, but in some instances they are. The problem is, it is only good for a set amount of time. A permanent monopoly is very bad as it limits/restricts competition and thus keeps prices artificially high. An example of a good monopoly was AT&T. A monopoly was needed to build the vast infrastructure of telecommunications. It served its purpose and was cut into a bunch of pieces in the 80's. Can you imagine what a mess it would have been with thousands of different companies all with different wires, routings, etc. vying for the consumers dollars. Incompatability between different phones, cities, states, etc would have made communicating very difficult and even more expensive than with a monopoly.

As far as the whole instant message thing, I have never used it, so I can't comment on whether or not one company would be better than several.

Sometimes, monopolies are a good thing, if they are regulated so things dont get out of control ( example, ATT back in the old days )


As far as Apes 1, i was wondering the same thing myself. I thought i had the wrong channel for a moment.

For IM's, i think a single open PROTOCOL would be the best, not one company.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 02-04-2007).]

Many utilities as monopolies are good for getting the systems in place. Electric, water, gas, phone work out real well as controlled monopolies. Ma Bell was good. One company for long distance works out nice. Now there are so many choices for long distance, cell phone, cable phone that the choices are confusing and most all charge similiar rates making any real dollar savings insignificant. Competative cell phone vendors sometime seem to gouge you when accessing their cell towers with roaming charges. Coverage varies across the country from different companies.

Many monopolies became corrupt and Teddy Roosevelt did break up many of them in the early 20th century.

The big three automakers became complacent in the 1950s-70s with low quality products because of no real competition.

Competition makes for improvements in technology at the cost of compatability of items Beta, Laser Disc, VHS video systems are an example. IBM clone or Apple computer systems are just becoming some what compatable.

i would think a monopoly is usually a good thing for the monopolist.

is a monopoly a necessary consequence of a well-functioning free market, or is it an aberration?

I don't know but is there a Amtack monopoly? I know it is very heavly subsdised.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: So its a stupid rant but come on........And why is 'Planet of the Apes' on History Channel?

So we don't make that mistake again?

I don't really like IM programs, to intrusive and to abused. Do I really need to notify people I'm away or at the keyboard? I'll open one for a chat if it's something someone scheduled.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: So we don't make that mistake again? I don't really like IM programs, to intrusive and to abused. Do I really need to notify people I'm away or at the keyboard? I'll open one for a chat if it's something someone scheduled.

I use them work. But Two diffrent companies use diffrent programmes. AIM MySpace and mIRC are mostly for chatting with friends and family who live long distance.

A monopoly is the economic equivalent of a dictatorship. As a lover of freedom and liberty, I despise monopolies.

Everyone's thinking it, so I'll just say it.

A monopoly is great if you have Boardwalk and Park Place. Especially with hotels.

Flamberge

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i would think a monopoly is usually a good thing for the monopolist. is a monopoly a necessary consequence of a well-functioning free market, or is it an aberration?

A monopoly would be impossible in the idealized free market. The only reason a monopoly can exist is because there is a barrier to entry to a market and because the monopoly can go against free market principles to drive out competition. In the real-world free market, a monopoly would probably be considered an aberration since it counteracts the principle of the free market.

Edit: A monopoly is like a dictatorship. If it were benevolent, wise, and knowledgeable, it would the ideal situation. Unfortunatly, if it is not benevolent, wise, or knowledgeable, being a monopoly/dictatorship allows it to be much, much worse.

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 02-05-2007).]

isnt a monopoly the winner of a free market compitition?

Monopolies are always bad, IMO. What you're wanting is a standardized IM protocol. Standardization is different. Look at CD audio, DVD movies, all the way back to cassette tapes, vinyl records and reel to reel tape - all standardized formats, but multiple companies could make their own product.

Proprietary format usually has problems. i.e. VHS v. Beta, Sony Minidisc, etc. What you need is an IM client that can handle the multiple IM protocols you're trying to use. I believe Trillian is one of the more compatible ones available.