| Art Alexion on 22 Sep 2010 11:56:37 -0700 |
|
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM, sean finney <seanius@seanius.net> wrote:
As Doug pointed out, competition isn't as simple as direct product for product. In traditional vertical monopolies one company owns the supply chain and keeps competitors out at one of those levels. For instance, Levi's owns a blue dye manufacturer and prevents others from bidding to supply the jeans factory. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to do this, so it is tough to prevent. But often it is more insidious than the commonly considered monopoly (think OS vs, other OS alternatives)
These get bad when you use vertical leverage (think Windows and Office) to inhibit true competition. That said, I can't see VMware wanting to "gimp" other guest OS alternatives because the core product makes more money supporting as much as they can, than they stand to make selling Suse.
Frankly, I don't see how it complements their business and why they would want it. Better matches would be VMware buying EMC or vice versa. -- artAlexion sent unsigned from webmail interface ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|