Open source as natural monopoly
Andrew Morton raised an interesting idea in his OLS 2004 keynote: systems software tends towards a natural monopoly, for several reasons.
- Developers don't want to write for platforms that are going to die off. At the moment Linux and Win32 are likely to be around for at least five years; beyond that it's unclear. So people developing software want to bet on the safest choice; this is a self-reinforcing effect. Similarly for people choosing platforms to use.
- Conversely, once you have invested in learning how to use an OS and its applications, or in hardware to support it, you don't want to switch.
- Operating systems are defined in CS101 as providing an abstract interface between hardware and applications. Standardizing that layer allows for good competition in both hardware and applications, thereby making the whole stack more appealing.
It's all very well to talk about avoiding lock-in, or standard interfaces, but it's a matter of degree. There is always at least a risk of problems if you try to switch.
Some people like to imagine a world where AmigaDOS, Mac OS, OS/2, Windows, Linux, BSD, etc all happily compete. Andrew points out, and I agree, that such a situation would never be stable.
Given that there will be a monopoly, that monopoly can be either owned by a single company, or it can be a public commons.
posted Wed 25 Aug 2004 in /software/opensource | link
Archives 2008: Apr Feb 2007: Jul May Feb Jan 2006: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun Jan 2005: Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2004: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2003: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May
Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.