3 ms·
I think strong arming PC manufacturers to stymie the creation of a viable competitor to Microsoft Windows (which in early iterations was really a terrible produ
by drcode 7y ago
I think strong arming PC manufacturers to stymie the creation of a viable competitor to Microsoft Windows (which in early iterations was really a terrible product, in my opinion, and very hostile to developers) may have hindered the computer revolution by several years- But obviously we can never know the outcome of counterfactuals for sure.
- notyourwork 7y agoLet’s not be so dramatic about a capitalist business decision to strategical maintain their market share. The computer wasn’t stymied and competition still exists.
- mjw1007 7y agoThere was a period of 10 or 15 years or so (up to around 2000) where the de-facto standard microcomputer operating system, supplied by MS, was much worse at using the hardware than it should have been. (In the earlier part it wasn't able to access all the memory without jumping through hoops; throughout the period it wasn't using the available protection mechanisms to isolate processes properly.) This was for business reasons, not because the human race didn't know how to write a better OS. (I don't think this makes Gates an evil person, but I think it does make it fair to say that Microsoft stymied the computer revolution to some extent.)
- erik_seaberg 7y agoIt was an attack on the free market. Concerted effort to prevent better products from being available for sale. We lost a decade of progress, and never even managed to claw back the money.
- notyourwork 7y agoBusinesses in power want to remain in power and will do what they think is "right" to protect their position. I'm not sure how this delayed innovation, it just made it harder to compete in the existing market.