Except that Microsoft is a once in a generation monopoly. There's nothing else like it. Cf. the airlines.
==============================
Yes, you're right. It is an unusual, probably once-in-a-generation monopoly. It certainly won't enjoy the multi-century run Western command and control has.
But there's another way of looking at the Microsoft effect, so to speak, that, to my way of seeing, illustrates important elements of modern forms of imperialism.
Microsoft has:
* Made itself the standard, in the minds of a multitude, by which other software efforts are judged
* Created a method of revenue extraction built upon its dominance (it's still controversial...still causes a stir, when a major PC vendor, such as Dell, announces it will offer consumer computers without Windows...controversial, because observers know that Dell has binding agreements with Redmond to exclusively offer only some flavor of Win and nothing else, modifying these agreements, fashioned through Microsoft's dominance, becomes as dramatic a news item as public arguments between Washington and Brussels).
* Crafted a successful propaganda campaign, otherwise known as FUD (for fear, uncertainty and doubt...I believe IBM pioneered this before my time) that paints alternatives as disastrous -- as being a form of technical and professional suicide. Again, the success of this campaign in shaping millions of minds is the result of its dominance...dominance carries the scent of 'success'.
So, to the extent that Microsoft has leveraged, as the biz types say, its power to create quicksand for others and to shape the impressions of millions it reminds me of imperialism as I understand it: the ability to write many of the rules, the ability to co-opt or destroy alternatives (not all of course, but many, and place hold-outs under tremendous pressure) and, of course, the ability to successfully convince millions that none of that has anything to do with your 'market share'.
.d.