"Windows was great in that it allowed multiple hardware vendors to compete on hardware..." Well, that is the "commotitized the complements" part. The other pa

"Windows was great in that it allowed multiple hardware vendors to compete on hardware..." Well, that is the "commotitized the complements" part. The other part of your argument is that it is/was good enough for most users. But let me put the question this way: If had it been 3x more expensive than the Mac, would have it been successful? If not, then there's a clear distinction between a great product and a great price. Remember the 3 Ps (Price, Product, Promotion)? Product and price are different things, specially in the software market, where the price doesn't necessarily reflect the cost. So if people would not buy a 3x more expensive Windows, great product it not the motive by which it was successful. I think the most accurate explanation in this case is not that Windows was a great product, but as another commenter said, that it offered a better value proposition for the money invested - and Microsoft had not the better product value, but the better price proposition, so they won that equation: MacOS had a product value of 10, and a price of 5, so the value proposition was 2. Windows had a product value of 5, but a price of 1, so the value proposition was 5, for each dollar invested.