>>11332
> Consider how an operating system like microsoft can influence nearly everything.
Because, for a long time, only geeks cared about the lack of alternatives and the closed formats. Again, the market reflects people's preferences. To this day, everybody loves BIll Gates, and they idolize Steve Jobs. I tell you this as an Ubuntu user.
> most likely exist because of government having stepped in in many cases
Have you considered how the government had previously "stepped in" when it favored Microsoft products for official uses? Don't you think it matters that, for a long time, MS Office was a quasi-official government standard? For instance, in public schools and universities. That must count for something!
> microsoft had to tell some others about how docx and the like are implemented
The docx standard was opened shortly after ODF became an ISO standard. Governments already have a huge impact on the market. They should have less, not more.
> Who would have heard of google if internet explorer blocked it near the start
Young people wouldn't have heard of Microsoft. The company would be long dead by now if they had been dumb enough to try something like that. Apple would have stepped in and taken over most of the PC market. The rest would go to Ubuntu.
> You can just look at ISPs in locations where google fiber arrived. Suddenly prices dropped and speeds increased dramatically.
So what's your complaint? The free market fixed it.
> what if it was still bell?
Either it would be a high-quality service, or they would be facing competitors.
> It is no longer feasable once one corporation has a giant network, to make a second one, because the corporation doesn't have to allow you access to their network in any way.
What keeps you from building a paralell network? In most cases, government (including local) regulations play a big role. The issue of common infrastructure management is, in fact, a great argument for building private cities from scratch. Failing that, city districts should be able to secede and implement public works regulations more to their liking.
> Once you become big, you can do things like buy up any actual competition
That doesn't work, as other explained ITT.
> or pay off those that have any power whatsoever to block others.
If you mean politicians, that's an argument FOR anarcho-capitalism, not against it. How can you "block" the competition in a free market?
> It is not like anarcho will suddenly mean there are no more people of power.
It means that no person or group has public consent to steal from others or block their peaceful cooperation. No matter how wealthy you are, in an ancap society, once you step outside of peaceful cooperation, all your money is useless because it might as well be taken by force. Ask Louis XVI or Tsar Nicholas II about the usefulness of money when your legitimacy is questioned.
> Things like giving schools tools based on your products
Public schools, bribed politicians.
> For example look at chinese metal dumping. They have hurt many western countries because china sold the metals for so much lower than it should have been able to afford,
What about the benefits they got from having access to cheap metals?
> and while in this case, there is a government that is the cause
Governments do many things for political and military reasons. It's hard to tell apart one from the other. I don't know the details of this particular case, but, as I said, just like it harmed metal producers it helped metal consumers. By the way, does this argument mean you advocate world government?