3 ms·
They really had no choice about divesting PCs. IBM was on Microsoft's bad side so was being charged more for Windows than competitors, and PCs already had razo
by btilly 6y ago
They really had no choice about divesting PCs. IBM was on Microsoft's bad side so was being charged more for Windows than competitors, and PCs already had razor thin margins. After they sold off their PC business, Microsoft had no reason to charge extra for Windows and that became a viable company.
- seunosewa 6y ago> IBM was on Microsoft's bad side so was being charged more for Windows than competitors I thought the DoJ investigation stopped Microsoft from doing such things. What am I missing?
- btilly 6y agoIt was a slap on the wrist. https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/downlo... has the judgement. Read the following phrase and consider the size of the truck you can drive through it. Nothing in this judgement shall prevent Microsoft from providing Consideration to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft product or service where that Consideration is commensurate with the absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of that Microsoft product or service. When IBM was competing with companies that got such "Consideration" and it couldn't, guess how that worked out?
- ansible 6y agoIBM killed their own PC business by going with the MCA bus, and not allowing 3rd parties to make expansion boards without a license. And the PS/2 series was quite expensive at the time.