From: John Conover <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [svlug] forwarded message from email@example.com, Re: Technological Path Dependencies and Inefficiency
Date: 28 Nov 1999 08:23:29 -0000
Since the list is kind of quiet, I had to work my way through the market numbers on Linux tonight for a guy in Germany on the sci.econ newsgroup, (it was a testosterone thing, as you can surmise from the attached.) FYI, ... John BTW, what it says is that NT is becoming increasingly vulnerable-its to a 50/50 turning point in the way the market evolves in the future, (and its an increasing returns scenario-its one of those kinds of things where the sum of the parts above the 50/50 point is larger than the whole; an NP hard algorithm kind of thing.) The next year, or so, (maybe less,) is very important, (probably the most important in its history,) for Linux, and will tell-the-tale. It also says that expanding market share of the likes of Apple, Be, *BSD, etc., is very important, and in Linux's best interest. On the other hand, it says that the desktop is not vulnerable to Linux, unless it can do so by leveraging its past gains against NT-which means there is a confrontation in the very near future with Win2K. At any rate, you can find why I picked the Gambler's Ruin scenario to model it at: http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~blok/p510gambler/p510gambler.html if you have insomnia, or something, and want to wade through it. ------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) ------- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Technological Path Dependencies and Inefficiency Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.econ.research Burkhard C. Schipper writes: > > Recently there has been some silly noise by noted economists about the > origin of the idea. Without doubt much work on this subject has been done by > Arthur (e.g. 1989, Economic Journal, Vol. 99, p. 116-131) but also others > were working on it. Anyway, the kindergarten-fight among economists just > shows how important they value the idea in light of the current anti-trust > politics. > Additional references: "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events", June 1987, Revised May, 1988, Econ Jnl, 99, pp. 106-131, 1989. Also available from http://www.santafe.edu/arthur. "Increasing Returns and the Two Worlds of Business", appeared in Harvard Business Review, July-Aug., 1996, under the title "Increasing Returns and the New World of Business". Also available from http://www.santafe.edu/arthur. "Positive Feedbacks in the Economy", Scientific American, February, 1990. Also available from http://www.santafe.edu/arthur. At any rate, Arthur acknowledges that the concept of increasing returns is not new. On page 4 of the HBR citation: Glimpsing some of these properties in 1939, John Hicks warned that admitting increasing returns would lead to "the wreckage of the greater part of economic theory." and goes on to argue that Hicks had mis-assessed the issues-increasing returns does not destroy the general/traditional theory of economics; it complements it. John BTW, I have had some success in modeling the dynamics of increasing returns in business and industrial markets with the Gambler's Ruin, (eg., like increasing returns in business, the player with limited capital has little chance against the casino, even if it is a perfect 50/50 chance game.) In the traditional Gambler's Ruin, the player's capital, over time, is a Brownian motion fractal. Adding leptokurtosis, makes it even worse-and the player/business with the smallest resources/market share has a very definite disadvantage. As an example, Linux is supposed to have about 10 million installed seats; Microsoft's Win9X about 90 million, (depending on who is telling the story, of course.) So, using those numbers, in the Gambler's Ruin, Linux's chance of *_EVER_* becoming dominant would be 10 / 90 = 11%, but the duration of the "game" in installed seats would be 10 million * (90 million - 10 million), or virtually indefinite-ie., the market is locked in a fairly static situation. However, for NT, (AKA, Win2K,) NT has about 35% of the market, Linux 17%, (IDG numbers,) and the chances of Linux dominating NT is almost 50%, (or MS has a 1 in 2 chance of loosing that market to Linux,) comparatively, a much more favorable state of affairs for Linux. But, suppose there were 10 players in the desktop market, each with 10 million seats, and Microsoft with 90 million. Then, it becomes a probability that Microsoft will loose its dominant position, 0.89^10 = about a one in three of surviving with its market intact. So, from this POV, an oligopoly is not sufficient to prevent "monopolistic" control of the market-it has to be a panoply. - -- John Conover, firstname.lastname@example.org, http://www.johncon.com/ ------- end ------- -- John Conover, email@example.com, http://www.johncon.com/ -- echo "unsubscribe svlug" | mail firstname.lastname@example.org ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to unsubscribe see http://www.svlug.org/mdstuff/lists.shtml for posting guidelines.