3 ms·

This comparison comes up a lot, but in my recollection the 90s were not nearly as bizarre as what we are seening now, especially with Apple. It would have been

This comparison comes up a lot, but in my recollection the 90s were not nearly as bizarre as what we are seening now, especially with Apple. It would have been completely unimaginable for Microsoft to dictate what software people were allowed to install on Windows, how to pay for it, and then take a revenue cut. It would have been unimaginable for Bill Gates to issue whiny statements about developers feeling entitled to a free ride on his platform because they refused to give him a cut. The 1990s controversies were all about preinstalling and bundling stuff. To a lesser degree it was also about access to undocumented APIs and the right to implement proprietary Microsoft network protocols. Granted, Microsoft had an even tighter OS monopoly than anyone does today. But the control it gave them was nothing compared to what today's oligopolists have.

geraldhh 3y ago
probably more "unfeasible at the time" than "unimaginable"
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Nintendo, Sega, Sony etc took a cut of each program sale at the time. It was not really unfeasible technically, but socially. Like selling "hats" or lootboxes to gamers were not unfeasable, but they refused to pay even the tiniest amount.
flakeoil 3y ago
> Microsoft had an even tighter OS monopoly than anyone does today. But Microsoft has a much tighter grip of the software market today than they ever had. They are in almost every vertical and they are number 1 or 2 in each. That's probably worse than a near monopoly in only one of the verticals.
DanielHB 3y ago
Microsoft also did try to push their closed platform with the windows store (win7 days I think). It is the whole reason Steam OS and Steam Deck exists today. It just didn't catch on. Nintendo/Sega/Sony did essentially do the same thing in the 90s that Apple does today with cartridges and CDs in their consoles. I guess Microsoft just didn't have enough leverage to push a closed platform (considering previous non-IBM PC platforms were also open) in the 90s (licensed boxed software) or in the 2010s (windows store).

geraldhh 3y ago

probably more "unfeasible at the time" than "unimaginable"

rightbyte 3y ago
Nintendo, Sega, Sony etc took a cut of each program sale at the time. It was not really unfeasible technically, but socially. Like selling "hats" or lootboxes to gamers were not unfeasable, but they refused to pay even the tiniest amount.

flakeoil 3y ago

> Microsoft had an even tighter OS monopoly than anyone does today. But Microsoft has a much tighter grip of the software market today than they ever had. They are in almost every vertical and they are number 1 or 2 in each. That's probably worse than a near monopoly in only one of the verticals.

DanielHB 3y ago

Microsoft also did try to push their closed platform with the windows store (win7 days I think). It is the whole reason Steam OS and Steam Deck exists today. It just didn't catch on. Nintendo/Sega/Sony did essentially do the same thing in the 90s that Apple does today with cartridges and CDs in their consoles. I guess Microsoft just didn't have enough leverage to push a closed platform (considering previous non-IBM PC platforms were also open) in the 90s (licensed boxed software) or in the 2010s (windows store).