Ask HN: How are monopolies lost?

By a new technology that changes the nature of the value proposition, for customers.<p>Warren Buffett seeks monopolies (like Coke). He avoids high technology because of the uncertainty of technology revolutions (they can still happen but <i>less often</i>; and even less likely to alter the nature of the value proposition - though note that coke, chocolate and chewing gum were new technologies at one time...).<p>- Schumpeter's theory of "creative destructionism"[1] shows how innovations can make monopolies irrelevant.<p>- Clayton Christiansen's "disruptive innovation"[2] is similar. He tracks the disk drive industry, and notes that incumbents retain their leadership through technology changes - unless they change the nature of the value proposition for customers. ie. no longer more of the same, but different tradeoffs. More precisely: <i>a change in the ranking of benefits in the customer value proposition.</i> e.g. Today's shift from HDD to SDD. [<i>edit</i>: he also predicted the 1.8 inch HDD to rise in a new market that valued its attribute ranking differently - pre-iPod]<p>- Geoffrey Moore's "Crossing the Chasm"[3] is a more concrete analysis about the adoption of innovations. He notes that once a leader is enshrined as the leader, the market actively works to support them, granting them leeway never given to the also-rans. He gives lots of reasons, but mainly it's mainly derived from observation.<p>This <i>leadership</i> has some of the qualities of a monopoly. It seems to be pretty hard to lose, except when the basis of it changes. i.e. when it "becomes irrelevant".<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter#Schumpeter_and_capitalism.27s_demise" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter#Schumpeter_an...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/christensen.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/christensen.htm</a><p>[3] <a href="http://www.parkerhill.com/Summary%20of%20Crossing%20the%20Chasm.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.parkerhill.com/Summary%20of%20Crossing%20the%20Ch...</a>

Windows was/is a great product in many senses. Great is not a word with a single application to an OS.<p>Windows was great in that it allowed multiple hardware vendors to compete on hardware without having to also design their own OS. It was great in that it allowed multiple corporations to market the same platform. And as it grew, it was great in that it allowed developers to write an app once that ran nearly anywhere.<p>There's a lot more to "great", as applicable to an operating system, than even usability, stability, graphic design. A lot of times the things you value, as a developer, aren't what the general public does. You might want an OS that's very much like Linux but with a much better GUI. Most people just want their PC to cost $300 and run any program they buy or have bought in the past.<p>So Microsoft's OS was clearly great by far more people's definition of the word than Apple's, and it reaped the rewards.

How many monopolies were lost without government intervention? I wouldn't call Apple's OS a monopoly, and even if it were, it wasn't for 10 years since Windows overtook it in 1990.<p>I'm trying to think of genuine monopolies that faded away without intervention and am coming up blank.

By bad dice luck usually, or by aunt Jane placing a hotel on Park Lane.

Stronger substitutes would appear to be a significant factor. For example, the erosion of IE’s dominance following the introduction of Firefox and others (although the barrier of IE being pre-loaded onto the majority of personal computers means this dominance will continue for some time). In this case not necessarily new tech, but better tech.

1. Production 2. Distribution 3. Consumption<p>I think monopoly arises when (2) is vendor locked.

stagnation and complacency.

Monopolies create power and with power comes corruption<p>and debacle...