Apple used to be like a centrally planned economy, though a good one. They dictate which hardware and software can work with their system, though the latter has been loosened by the advent of BSD / Linux, and it is being loosened even further by the switch to Intel CPU. An example of stricter central planning is some video game consoles, which will sue you if you try to publish software for their system without paying them a license fee.
Microsoft is like a mixed economy. You can choose which company makes your hardware, as long as it's Intel-compatible. The API's are 90% published, though the unpublished 10% is an annoyance. There are lots of non-Microsoft products to choose from, but Microsoft obviously has an unfair advantage. It likes to keep the "commanding heights" of the software market to itself and its partners.
FLOSS is more like anarchy, with BSD being slightly more pro-capitalist than GNU/Linux. Any component can be easily replaced. There are no costs involved for most packages only because if you had to pay a few cents a month for some packages, competition would have quickly driven those prices to zero. On some distros, there's nothing standing in the way of people who want to sell Linux/BSD software for profit. In high-end markets, like top-notch RDBMS's or high-graphics games, for-profit businesses will probably always have an edge.