As in, Microsoft Windows?
Microsoft's Windows OS is a good example, no matter how much they try and push their OS on people, they can't stamp out the competition (Linux, MacOS, etc.). Because MS has not created the perfect product for the perfect price those competators will stick around. As soon as MS figures out how to make the perfect product and they sell it at the perfect price then MacOS and Linus will fade away (unlikely to occur).
Does it offer the highest quality with the lowest cost possible? I don't think so, but it is a virtual monopoly in any case.
With the user base of MSW, it could be a LOT cheaper while still being very profitable.
I think you underestimate the cost of running a company like Microsoft. While I'm not a fan of the price of their OS, I am free to switch to another OS at any time if the price bothers me enough.
How about your local cable/internet provider? In each area it is a virtual monopoly, because there are no other choices available (or so few as to be meaningless).
Or the local power company?
These companies control their markets because of government regulations causing high barrier to entry into the market. I'm not allowed to just setup a tower and start transmitting wireless access to my neighbors. I'm not allowed to build a small nuclear power plant in my back yard (hell, this will likely land me in prison for trying to create a nuclear device). I'm not allowed to run power lines over the streets without permits and paying fees. I'm not allowed to dig a ditch to provide power/water to my neighbors from my well. All of this is because the government owns the roads, the airwaves, etc. meaning I am not allowed to actually bootstrap a competing power/water/network to my neighbors.
But then, you said 'in a truly free market', didn't you? I guess that makes all the difference.
Yes, it does. There hasn't been anything close to a free market since before the great depression. The US is far from a free market today, and in fact there are more free places in the world (though still not entirely free).
But, you contradict yourself. You first say "in a truly free market" it would not be a problem; then you go on to say that "If that is not the case and the market is truely free..." (but didn't you just say that 'in a free market? - indicating that the market was truly free?) ..."then competition will appear." But, in a truly freemarket, there will always be competition.
It appears you misunderstood my statement here, perhaps I could have worded it more clearly. In "If that is not the case..." 'that' referrs to a company offering a perfect product for a perfect price. When I said, "...and the market is truely free." I was clarifying that was still an assertion, I probably could have left it out as it was redundant, since I already stated at the begining that I was talking about a free market. There will not necessarily be competition in a truely free market. If one company can provide a perfect good at a perfect price then there is no reason for competition to appear. In most cases, people get greedy which causes competition to appear but it's not necessarily the case.
Face it. The 'free market' is only as free as the government wishes it to be. And these days, our government is not given to 'freedom'.
And this is exactly the problem. The US (and the rest of the world) hasn't been even close to a free market for a long time. And governments, by nature, are not free.