4 ms·

Absolutely not. People who didn't live through that era really don't appreciate a key aspect of it, which was that MSFT OWNED the desktop -- like, 90+% of the

Absolutely not. People who didn't live through that era really don't appreciate a key aspect of it, which was that MSFT OWNED the desktop -- like, 90+% of the market. There were no other real options. For a good chunk of that period, Apple was seriously on the ropes and might not have survived. (Michael Dell famously said it should be sold off and the money returned to the investors.) Microsoft had deals in place with PC makers so that it was impossible, nearly, to buy a computer without buying a Windows license. BillG specifically told Netscape he planned to "cut off their oxygen supply" by shipping a browser with Windows, and he did this because he was smart enough to see that browser-based software could endanger their control of computing. That was literally illegal. No one has anything like the control they had back then. The desktop market is still mostly Windows, but Apple got healthy and took a decent chunk back. Now there's also ChromeOS and Linux out there, too -- plus, we have mobile, which is an even BIGGER chunk of the platform market, and it's split between iOS and Android. So that's at least 6 different software platforms a hypothetical user could pick in 2022, and they're spread over dozens of hardware manufacturers. That's been the norm for so long now that it's easy to forget how little choice we had in 1998. *ANYWAY* the bigger point is that adding features to your system isn't a problem if you're not acting as a monopolist. Microsoft WAS in the 90s. Nobody has that ability now.

dysarray 4y ago
There are still a lot of companies out there with significant control over their respective markets. Apple, for example, still has a huge control over the mobile device market and is not afraid to use it to their advantage. Companies like Amazon and Google also have significant control over their respective markets, particularly in the technology space. Seems like we can never relax, always some company waiting for the chance to take over a space. Gotta stay vigilant.
oblio 4y ago
Apple just undercut this by creating an ecosystem which funnels something like 80% of mobile profits in their pockets. Then they just point at marketshare and say: "we only have 30% worldwide". Yeah, but your stuff is aspirational and the vast majority of Android users have lower disposable income so spend less and many switch to iOS when they have enough money. It's very sneaky and it's breaking everything down. Laws just haven't caught up to it.
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  LOL. Are you suggesting that a successful business with a small fraction of the overall market be treated like a proven monopolist? That's risible.
  - oblio 4y ago
    Did you really read my comment? https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-operating-profit-q2-2021/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-o... > Apple Captures 75% of Global Handset Market Operating Profit in Q2 2021 At this point everyone competing, including Samsung, are getting close to also-rans. I felt otherwise a few years back, but Apple's marketshare is actually going up almost universally, as countries develop: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-sha... Android is stagnating, if anything despite the free and Open Source operating system and the million models of phones.
    - ubermonkey 4y ago
      Profit is not market share. They do not control the market, and thus are not subject to -- and should NOT be subject to -- the kinds of restrictions justifiably imposed on actual monopolists. >Android is stagnating, if anything despite the free and Open Source operating system I might argue that Android is stagnating BECAUSE it's free/open source, and as such lacks effective leadership.
      - oblio 4y ago
        > Profit is not market share. No, it's even better. If a company could have 1 single user and that user could pay them $500bn in perpetuity for a product costing $1, they'd only want that customer. They want more customers because they can't have that ideal case. First of all nobody would pay that much for such a cheap thing, secondly, nobody lives for ever. So companies expand to make more money (= profit) and to future proof themselves. Again, as I said, very sneaky from Apple, and I'm arguing it's breaking down existing economic models. It's basically another run-around at "winning capitalism". Monopolies were one way. This is another one.

dysarray 4y ago

There are still a lot of companies out there with significant control over their respective markets. Apple, for example, still has a huge control over the mobile device market and is not afraid to use it to their advantage. Companies like Amazon and Google also have significant control over their respective markets, particularly in the technology space. Seems like we can never relax, always some company waiting for the chance to take over a space. Gotta stay vigilant.

oblio 4y ago

Apple just undercut this by creating an ecosystem which funnels something like 80% of mobile profits in their pockets. Then they just point at marketshare and say: "we only have 30% worldwide". Yeah, but your stuff is aspirational and the vast majority of Android users have lower disposable income so spend less and many switch to iOS when they have enough money. It's very sneaky and it's breaking everything down. Laws just haven't caught up to it.

ubermonkey 4y ago
LOL. Are you suggesting that a successful business with a small fraction of the overall market be treated like a proven monopolist? That's risible.
- oblio 4y ago
  Did you really read my comment? https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-operating-profit-q2-2021/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-o... > Apple Captures 75% of Global Handset Market Operating Profit in Q2 2021 At this point everyone competing, including Samsung, are getting close to also-rans. I felt otherwise a few years back, but Apple's marketshare is actually going up almost universally, as countries develop: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-sha... Android is stagnating, if anything despite the free and Open Source operating system and the million models of phones.
  - ubermonkey 4y ago
    Profit is not market share. They do not control the market, and thus are not subject to -- and should NOT be subject to -- the kinds of restrictions justifiably imposed on actual monopolists. >Android is stagnating, if anything despite the free and Open Source operating system I might argue that Android is stagnating BECAUSE it's free/open source, and as such lacks effective leadership.
    - oblio 4y ago
      > Profit is not market share. No, it's even better. If a company could have 1 single user and that user could pay them $500bn in perpetuity for a product costing $1, they'd only want that customer. They want more customers because they can't have that ideal case. First of all nobody would pay that much for such a cheap thing, secondly, nobody lives for ever. So companies expand to make more money (= profit) and to future proof themselves. Again, as I said, very sneaky from Apple, and I'm arguing it's breaking down existing economic models. It's basically another run-around at "winning capitalism". Monopolies were one way. This is another one.