Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).
Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
I disagree with the premise of the question. The IT business adds players as new disruptor emerge, however, no one becomes the single dominant force. In this sense, the question is malformed, but so are answers to it. IT is a commodity market, and so it doesn't play well with monopolies - even the Microsoft monopoly was never nearly as total as say, Ma Bell was. A simplified timeline of disruption: IBM - System/360, first business computer Intel - first commercial, mass produced ICs Apple - first personal computers, then first GUI Microsoft - first integrated, standardized, and affordable operating system for pcs, then first integrated PC business applications Google - first integrated, standardized, and affordable (free!) internet user interface, then web-centric applications All of these companies are still around, earning combined revenues in the hundreds of billions, and continue to innovate and enable innovation: IT since the 70s has been built by startups whose exit strategy is to be swallowed up by the major players. As much as fanboys and fangirls of each of these companies hate to admit, and as much as their critics decry them, not one of them will emerge as total dominators. Another market has a similar makeup, that of broadcast: ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX are dominant players with different levels of dominance in the different spaces, but not one of them can become top dog for more than a few years. The whole idea that a "final" winner is possible is ludicrous, and patently so.
Cerejota
