Are three companies really enough?

There is a very interesting phenomenon that happens within industry sectors.  Given enough time and maturity of an industry, generally three major players rise to the top and become the go-to companies for the majority of consumers, leaving any new comer to struggle to survive, if possible.

One that people know the best, at least in North America, are Ford, GM and Chrysler.  Another set in phone services are Bell (AT&T), Rogers, and Telus.  In computer operating systems, it would be Microsoft, Apple, and Linux.  In antivirus software it would be Symantec, McAfee, and AVG.  BP, Chevron, and Exxon in oil.  In television, it was ABC, NBC, and CBS (that industry has completely changed, now).  Of course, while these companies may be global, different numbers and different regions may suggest who the big three are, otherwise.

The point is, as an independent, how can anyone in any industry hope to compete, unless they are open source, as one of the examples above has shown.

This is purely an op ed article which may not come to any real conclusion.  There is an ongoing disagreement that Linux is even a player, in the operating system industry.  Depending on the numbers and who you ask, there are no other real operating systems, other than Microsoft.  And in some ways, while Linux is the generic name used for all UNIX like operating systems, which include GNU/Linux, BSD, UNIX, etc, it requires a combination of all of these smaller efforts to even amount to a measurable amount compared to Microsoft.  Even Apple is no where close.

That disclaimer stated, Linux is a very reliable and capable operating system that has stood its ground and made inroads to many millions of desktops around the world and is very popular in Europe and developing countries, simply because it is free to own, which creates a strong knowledge base of the operating system in those areas, meaning cost of ownership, such as for easily available support, is very low.  And that, is one of the biggest measure of success of the Open Source movement.

Big three companies certainly had a bad rap.  There are many examples of how they got to their stature by what some might claim, was less than ethical.  That said, it is suggested that people generally have only enough room in their brains to focus on three options of any industry.  Presence and advertising (branding) is the main reason these companies remain on the top three.

Depending on the numbers and measuring stick, Linux has a lower cost of ownership.  This includes things like initial cost of the software, skill required to install the software, stability and quality of the software requiring less maintenance due to failure, and the ease of training to use the software.  But that doesn't matter to most people.  Most people use what they know, and what they know is Microsoft.

It is the very nature of Open Source and word of mouth, that has allowed Linux to make any mark.  While it began in the early '90s, it wasn't until the early

2000s that it started to creep into news stories and began to be talked about in any serious manner.  Nevertheless, as a very capable operating system, it began to make very serious inroads into electronic devices, in ways that most people would never notice.

For example, Linux is one of the primary (core) operating system software in embedded systems, such as TVs, routers, certain vehicle monitoring systems, phones (Android is Linux), entertainment systems, and it has even gone to the moon.  Beyond that, Linux comprises a large, perhaps majority market share in enterprise management systems and many of the systems that control, manage, and service the internet.

Of course, all numbers will vary depending on the source and even this article can be considered biased in representing Linux as a major player.  We did not conduct our own research study, rely on the accuracy of other data, and even if we did conduct our own study, those results would be questioned.

So this really takes us back to the point, though.  Are three companies really enough?  Or more to the point, what value can open source bring to the table of an industry that already has a "big three"?

Well, whether an industry is controlled by a monopoly or by a big three, people still do, often want choice.  Yes, they may ask...  or demand... for choice and then, when that option is provided, they don't choose the option.  Their reasons may vary.  But Open Source does make a difference and when a person is comfortable or motivated enough to make the choice, they do so.  And if they chose a reputable, and quality option, they consistently speak well of the experience and value they've gained.  People feel good when they choose to leave the restrictions that are often imposed by the "big three", which are still, more often than not, proprietary organizations.

The better question might be, "Is an open source option a good option?"  Hopefully in most cases, the answer would be, "Yes."  Of course, if an open source option is an only option, in a very narrow sector, it might have some serious issues.  No industry should ever be limited to only one or two options.

Tens of options may seem like too many, but any industry that has only three options, could certainly warrant another one or two major players, especially if the current players are severely restrictive and the new options are at least somewhat, if not significantly better.