A Quote by Steve Ballmer

We don't have a monopoly. We have market share. There's a difference. — © Steve Ballmer
We don't have a monopoly. We have market share. There's a difference.
If a company is not a monopoly, then the law assumes market competition can restrain the company's actions. No problem. If a monopoly exists, but the monopoly does not engage in acts designed to destroy competition, then we can assume that it earned and is keeping its monopoly the pro-consumer way: by out-innovating its competitors.
When you look at whether a company is a monopoly or not, the first thing you look at is what kind of market segment share they have.
You want an idea that turns into a monopoly. But you can't get a monopoly, in a big market right away; too much competition for that.
The mere possession of monopoly power, and the concomitant charging of monopoly prices, is not only not unlawful, it is an important element of the free-market system. The opportunity to charge monopoly prices - at least for a short period - is what attracts 'business acumen' in the first place; it induces risk taking that produces innovation and economic growth.
In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition in a free market...Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed...was created and made possible only by an act of government...which granted special privileges (not obtainable in a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field.
Land monopoly is not only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies; it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.
When a market isn't in transition, gaining market share is hard - you're fighting to take one or two points of share from competitors.
Market share is king. You cannot afford to replace lost market share.
And maybe the cereal makers by and large have learned to be less crazy about fighting for market share-because if you get even one person who's hell-bent on gaining market share.... For example, if I were Kellogg and I decided that I had to have 60% of the market, I think I could take most of the profit out of cereals. I'd ruin Kellogg in the process. But I think I could do it.
The Liberal Party of Canada has no monopoly on public service, we have no monopoly on virtue, and we have no monopoly on wisdom.
Whereas a competitive firm must sell at the market price, a monopoly owns its market, so it can set its own prices. Since it has no competition, it produces at the quantity and price combination that maximizes its profits.
India is a large market where our focus will be to grow faster than the market and add few percentage points to our market share every year.
There is no difference in the realization of the Truth either by a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, or a Christian. The difference is only in words and terms. Truth is not the monopoly of a particular race or religion.
I think it would be bad for storytellers in general if one company was able to seize a 40-50-60% share in storytelling. I don't think monopoly market shares are good for society, and I think they'd be particularly bad for society and storytellers if they were achieved in the storytelling genre.
I am the largest market shareholder of clothing in the U.K. and I am not a destination shop for food. If the clothing market is affected - and it has been - and I hold my market share mathematically, then fine, I am doing no worse than the market is doing, which is exactly the case, but I'm losing revenue.
I am the largest market shareholder of clothing in the UK and I am not a destination shop for food. If the clothing market is affected - and it has been - and I hold my market share mathematically, then fine, I am doing no worse than the market is doing, which is exactly the case, but I'm losing revenue.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!