3 ms·

Makes me wonder, was the DoJ right that it was bad for Microsoft to bundle Internet Explorer for free? I know it sounds insane now to have an OS without a brows

Makes me wonder, was the DoJ right that it was bad for Microsoft to bundle Internet Explorer for free? I know it sounds insane now to have an OS without a browser, but was this the “original sin” that permanently warped expectations for what amounts people should be willing to pay for software? Even today, outside of gaming/entertainment, the consumer software market is basically a wasteland. But if you had to pay for a browser today (pick your favorite), how much would that be worth to you? (Netscape cost $50! Or $90 in today’s equivalent.) I can’t think of any other market where we expect so much in exchange for paying so little. Most likely today’s end state was inevitable; if MSFT hadn’t bundled IE, someone else would have made a similar play and capitalized on the network effects.

a-dub 5y ago
you could make similar arguments for any integrated or bundled technology. even products like microsoft office which knocked out competition back in the day when there were competing spreadsheet packages. where it gets philosophically interesting is how this integration can cut across dimensions. software can be bundled horizontally, and software+hardware+commerce+service can be bundled vertically. integration often leads to smoother experiences for end users at reduced cost, but comes at the expense of winner take all economics in the marketplace. finding the right balance across both dimensions will be the great challenge for 21st century technology regulation. it's unclear to me how much antitrust experience from the past will help with this (or if consolidation may actually be desirable, freeing up capacity for new problems)