3 ms·
Is your argument that the consent decree preventing Microsoft from innovating wrt to the web, or that they were afraid to because of the recent anti-trust actio
by remarkEon 6y ago
Is your argument that the consent decree preventing Microsoft from innovating wrt to the web, or that they were afraid to because of the recent anti-trust action? The former I have a hard time believing (though I probably haven't read enough history on it to make an informed decision), but the latter seems very plausible.
- nostrademons 6y agoMore the latter. Same thing happened with IBM: they were willing to let Microsoft retain the rights to MS-DOS because they were under antitrust scrutiny throughout all of the 70s.
- philistine 6y agoWow! Can you see what you’re arguing for here? A tech company under tight scrutiny has to give an opportunity for a smaller competitor to unlock incredible wealth beyond what the big tech firm could have done on its own. /r/selfawarewolves
- nostrademons 6y agoI'm not arguing for anything here. I'm explaining that the original commenter has it right: the result of this will be less innovation within a company under intense antitrust scrutiny (whether it be IBM, Microsoft, Google, or any other). Whether innovation happens elsewhere is a separate question. Personally I think it's pretty likely - it worked out for Microsoft and Google, after all - and probably would be a good thing over the long term, but there was also an "innovation desert" for ~4-5 years while the big incumbents were too scared to innovate or compete and yet the new startups were not big or wealthy enough to field an effective challenge.