8 ms·

Microsoft's market share was well over 90% in the 90s. The iPhone's market share is 60%. Very different market dynamics. It was a lot easier to see how Microso

Microsoft's market share was well over 90% in the 90s. The iPhone's market share is 60%. Very different market dynamics. It was a lot easier to see how Microsoft was being mean-spirited for consumers versus Apple. I'd argue that Apple's policies are consumer agnostic, and the only people really up in arms about Apple are developers and some of its partners. Also the US is no longer in a position to be punching it's own companies, given the onslaught of Chinese companies that are seeking to undercut in even auto manufacturing now.

karmelapple 3y ago
This is the right answer. Apple was nearly dead. Microsoft literally gave them a big investment to keep them alive [1] , in part to avoid monopoly-related issues [2]. Microsoft was doing everything in its power to kill the only other serious browser at the time, Netscape, and it basically had "won" the desktop and server market. It's pretty astounding that Apple was ever able to do as well as it did in the server, laptop, and desktop market. 1. https://www.neowin.net/news/a-quick-look-back-at-when-microsoft-invested-150-million-in-apple-46-years-ago-today/ https://www.neowin.net/news/a-quick-look-back-at-when-micros... 2. https://www.engadget.com/2014-05-20-what-ever-became-of-microsofts-150-million-investment-in-apple.html https://www.engadget.com/2014-05-20-what-ever-became-of-micr...
- scarface_74 3y ago
  This is not true. The “big investment” was $250 million dollars after Apple had already secured a multi billion dollar loan. Apple then turned around and used $100 million to buy PowerComputings Mac assets. Apple continued to lose millions after that. The investment did not “save” Apple
  - yardie 3y ago
    It was $250M, a public acknowledgment of continued Office for Mac development, and the announcement of Internet Explorer for Mac gave investors, business buyers, and developers confidence in Apple. Because if Microsoft, the biggest tech company at that time, was bullish on Apple the rest of the industry could have faith in them too. The $250M was largely symbolic, everyone knew that.
    - JustExAWS 3y ago
      The person I replied to in fact did not know that > Apple was nearly dead. Microsoft literally gave them a big investment to keep them alive
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Microsoft's market share was well over 90% in the 90s. The iPhone's market share is 60%. Very different market dynamics. Couldn't be more wrong. It's not even remotely comparable. Yes Microsoft had a 90% OS market share but it was an open OS running on open HW platform wich had many players, so users had the freedom to install whatever non-Microsoft SW and HW they wanted on it and SW developers could develop software for it without needing Microsoft's permission for sales or distribution on their OS, or giving them a 30% cut of their profits (other than buying a MS Visual C++ license maybe). While Apple might have an "only" 60% market share now (though it's currently 87% amongst US teens today[1] so it's only a matter of time till it reaches 90s' Microsoft levels of monopoly amongst US gen-pop) but it's a closed OS running on closed HW with attestation, so costumers and SW developers have absolutely no choice but to run only Apple approved content on them. Vastly more restrictive than what Microsoft of the 90's could even dream of. >It was a lot easier to see how Microsoft was being mean-spirited for consumers versus Apple. How? Just like Apple, Microsoft was only being mean spirited to SW and HW vendors and competitors, not to consumers. [1] https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-teens-iphone-e5e58147 https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-teens-iphone-e5...
- laborcontract 3y ago
  There was no reasonable alternative to Windows for any consumer. There's a reason that the 90% market share number was for Windows. Also, you could have developed whatever you wanted, but made an active choice to try to extinguish those applications with OEMs, ISPs, and content providers to squeeze out Netscape. It's truly lost on people today how Bill Gates was an absolute killer back in the day. > How? Just like Apple, Microsoft was only being mean spirited to SW and HW vendors and competitors, not to consumers. The consumer experience for iPhone users is much better than that of Windows users back in the day. People were scared of Windows.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >There was no reasonable alternative to Windows for any consumer. Didn't stop you from selling your SW for the Windows platform without paying Microsoft a dime or Microsoft having any way to stop you. Look at WinRar or the thousands of other small companies who made a living selling SW for Windows without paying Microsoft a cent. >The consumer experience for iPhone users is much better than that of Windows users back in the day. UX is subjective and debatable. And there's a difference between one having poor UX, and one being "mean spirited towards users".
spixy 3y ago
iPhone's market share is 30% (globally)

karmelapple 3y ago

This is the right answer. Apple was nearly dead. Microsoft literally gave them a big investment to keep them alive [1] , in part to avoid monopoly-related issues [2]. Microsoft was doing everything in its power to kill the only other serious browser at the time, Netscape, and it basically had "won" the desktop and server market. It's pretty astounding that Apple was ever able to do as well as it did in the server, laptop, and desktop market. 1. https://www.neowin.net/news/a-quick-look-back-at-when-microsoft-invested-150-million-in-apple-46-years-ago-today/ https://www.neowin.net/news/a-quick-look-back-at-when-micros... 2. https://www.engadget.com/2014-05-20-what-ever-became-of-microsofts-150-million-investment-in-apple.html https://www.engadget.com/2014-05-20-what-ever-became-of-micr...

scarface_74 3y ago
This is not true. The “big investment” was $250 million dollars after Apple had already secured a multi billion dollar loan. Apple then turned around and used $100 million to buy PowerComputings Mac assets. Apple continued to lose millions after that. The investment did not “save” Apple
- yardie 3y ago
  It was $250M, a public acknowledgment of continued Office for Mac development, and the announcement of Internet Explorer for Mac gave investors, business buyers, and developers confidence in Apple. Because if Microsoft, the biggest tech company at that time, was bullish on Apple the rest of the industry could have faith in them too. The $250M was largely symbolic, everyone knew that.
  - JustExAWS 3y ago
    The person I replied to in fact did not know that > Apple was nearly dead. Microsoft literally gave them a big investment to keep them alive

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>Microsoft's market share was well over 90% in the 90s. The iPhone's market share is 60%. Very different market dynamics. Couldn't be more wrong. It's not even remotely comparable. Yes Microsoft had a 90% OS market share but it was an open OS running on open HW platform wich had many players, so users had the freedom to install whatever non-Microsoft SW and HW they wanted on it and SW developers could develop software for it without needing Microsoft's permission for sales or distribution on their OS, or giving them a 30% cut of their profits (other than buying a MS Visual C++ license maybe). While Apple might have an "only" 60% market share now (though it's currently 87% amongst US teens today[1] so it's only a matter of time till it reaches 90s' Microsoft levels of monopoly amongst US gen-pop) but it's a closed OS running on closed HW with attestation, so costumers and SW developers have absolutely no choice but to run only Apple approved content on them. Vastly more restrictive than what Microsoft of the 90's could even dream of. >It was a lot easier to see how Microsoft was being mean-spirited for consumers versus Apple. How? Just like Apple, Microsoft was only being mean spirited to SW and HW vendors and competitors, not to consumers. [1] https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-teens-iphone-e5e58147 https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-teens-iphone-e5...

laborcontract 3y ago
There was no reasonable alternative to Windows for any consumer. There's a reason that the 90% market share number was for Windows. Also, you could have developed whatever you wanted, but made an active choice to try to extinguish those applications with OEMs, ISPs, and content providers to squeeze out Netscape. It's truly lost on people today how Bill Gates was an absolute killer back in the day. > How? Just like Apple, Microsoft was only being mean spirited to SW and HW vendors and competitors, not to consumers. The consumer experience for iPhone users is much better than that of Windows users back in the day. People were scared of Windows.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >There was no reasonable alternative to Windows for any consumer. Didn't stop you from selling your SW for the Windows platform without paying Microsoft a dime or Microsoft having any way to stop you. Look at WinRar or the thousands of other small companies who made a living selling SW for Windows without paying Microsoft a cent. >The consumer experience for iPhone users is much better than that of Windows users back in the day. UX is subjective and debatable. And there's a difference between one having poor UX, and one being "mean spirited towards users".

spixy 3y ago

iPhone's market share is 30% (globally)