5 ms·

Microsoft won for one simple reason -- the licensing deal for DOS. (Not that it wasn't smart and ruthless and good at executing.) IBM made DOS the dominant desk

Microsoft won for one simple reason -- the licensing deal for DOS. (Not that it wasn't smart and ruthless and good at executing.) IBM made DOS the dominant desktop OS, and the licensing deal allowed Microsoft to enable clone makers to displace IBM (without displacing DOS). Microsoft's legendary persistence -- fast following rival products and iterating them until they didn't suck and eventually drove competitors out of business -- would have been fruitless without the dominant position IBM simply handed to Microsoft with the original DOS deal. And none of this stuff has taken place since Bill Gates left. Microsoft's record for the last ten years has been of failed initiatives (Zune, WinCE) and barely-successful subsidized persistence (MSN, XBox). There's one significant case where Microsoft managed to do well without directly benefiting from the original DOS deal and that's XBox. (This indirectly benefited from the DOS deal in that it leveraged Microsoft's dominance of gaming, and subsidized by profits from that dominance, but compared to everything else it qualifies as an independent success.) Of course, XBox has hardly made Microsoft any money.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
>Microsoft won for one simple reason -- the licensing deal for DOS I think bigger and gutsy move was licensing DOS/Windows to Compaq inspite of IBM not being happy with it. Microsoft could've had an Apple like vertical integration(and immense profits) by making hardware too, but never made PCs. Licensing to PC clones drove the prices of PCs down and made them affordable to a wide swath of the world and helping the Internet come about. If computers cost $3000 like back in the day, adoption would have been quite low. >Microsoft's legendary persistence -- fast following rival products and iterating them until they didn't suck and eventually drove competitors out of business -- would have been fruitless without the dominant position IBM simply handed to Microsoft with the original DOS deal. Sure, but lots of companies have a lot of money to throw around but the difference with Microsoft was they kept at it and waited for missteps from competition while continuously making improvements. Eg. Netscape with the big rewrite http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html or more recently, Sony with the PS3 security issues and Move.
sliverstorm 15y ago
I wouldn't call the Xbox barely-successful. I'd even say it fits in perfectly with your described model of following rival products and iterating. (Xbox -> Xbox360)
- raganwald 15y ago
  Microsoft's other successes netted it billions of dollars. XBox’s chief success from a business perspective seems to be defensive, as long as XBox maintains a significant market share, nobody will create a post-PC or post-TV world based on gaming consoles. Of course, somebody seems to be creating a post-PC world based on phones and tablets, but that doesn’t negate the fact that this could have happened earlier if someone like SOny had sewn up 99% of the gaming console market and then integrated it with the web and content.
RandallBrown 15y ago
I agree with what you're saying, but since this is the Internet I'm going to nitpick one little tiny point. Windows CE has done just fine. It's not as huge a profit maker as Office or Windows, but it's still used on millions of devices worldwide. It ships in millions of Ford cars, ATMs, billboards, etc.

recoiledsnake 15y ago

>Microsoft won for one simple reason -- the licensing deal for DOS I think bigger and gutsy move was licensing DOS/Windows to Compaq inspite of IBM not being happy with it. Microsoft could've had an Apple like vertical integration(and immense profits) by making hardware too, but never made PCs. Licensing to PC clones drove the prices of PCs down and made them affordable to a wide swath of the world and helping the Internet come about. If computers cost $3000 like back in the day, adoption would have been quite low. >Microsoft's legendary persistence -- fast following rival products and iterating them until they didn't suck and eventually drove competitors out of business -- would have been fruitless without the dominant position IBM simply handed to Microsoft with the original DOS deal. Sure, but lots of companies have a lot of money to throw around but the difference with Microsoft was they kept at it and waited for missteps from competition while continuously making improvements. Eg. Netscape with the big rewrite http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html or more recently, Sony with the PS3 security issues and Move.

sliverstorm 15y ago

I wouldn't call the Xbox barely-successful. I'd even say it fits in perfectly with your described model of following rival products and iterating. (Xbox -> Xbox360)

raganwald 15y ago
Microsoft's other successes netted it billions of dollars. XBox’s chief success from a business perspective seems to be defensive, as long as XBox maintains a significant market share, nobody will create a post-PC or post-TV world based on gaming consoles. Of course, somebody seems to be creating a post-PC world based on phones and tablets, but that doesn’t negate the fact that this could have happened earlier if someone like SOny had sewn up 99% of the gaming console market and then integrated it with the web and content.

RandallBrown 15y ago

I agree with what you're saying, but since this is the Internet I'm going to nitpick one little tiny point. Windows CE has done just fine. It's not as huge a profit maker as Office or Windows, but it's still used on millions of devices worldwide. It ships in millions of Ford cars, ATMs, billboards, etc.