3 ms·
I mean, what you are effectively arguing is that Microsoft's OS is so freaking awesome and amazing and good for consumers, that no other competitor is able to p
by stale2002 9y ago
I mean, what you are effectively arguing is that Microsoft's OS is so freaking awesome and amazing and good for consumers, that no other competitor is able to provide value to consumers as much as microsoft is.
And your solution is effectively to make Microsoft's products worse, so that a different, lower quality product is able to compete.
What about instead of that, we do the thing that helps consumers, instead of hurting them?
- throwaway2048 9y agoThe error in your assumption is that windows wins because its "so freaking awesome" and not because of secondary effects that microsoft has imposed on the market via its ability to effectively force adoption of stuff.