10 ms·
I know what you're getting at, but one could argue that the market indeed took care of the problem (if you consider it to be a problem) of Microsoft having such
by noarchy 14y ago
I know what you're getting at, but one could argue that the market indeed took care of the problem (if you consider it to be a problem) of Microsoft having such a large market share. Apple innovated, and Linux found a place in Android. Suddenly Microsoft is playing catchup.
- rprasad 14y agoThe market took care of the problem only because the antitrust injunction prevented Microsoft from dominating the market in its customary manner. Without that injunction, Apple would be dead today. (Microsoft's investment in Apple during the antitrust proceedings is the only reason Apple survived long enough to push out the iPod.) Indeed, a lot of what Apple is lauded for today (i.e., integration) is stuff that Microsoft was explicity prevented from doing under the terms of the antitrust injunction.
- noarchy 14y agoMicrosoft's investment in Apple wasn't mere charity, if we're to believe this anecdote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/03/01/steve-jobs-used-patents-to-get-bill-gates-to-make-1997-investment-in-apple/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/03/01/steve-job... Things like the iPhone weren't going to come from Microsoft. Rather than beating them in the desktop market, which Apple still hasn't done, it won on a different battlefield.
- rprasad 14y agoThat was my point -- without the antitrust injunction, Microsoft would not have invested in Apple. Ergo, Apple owes its existence today to the injunction.
- noarchy 14y agoThe article I linked never mentioned the injunction. Apple was suing Microsoft, and the investment by MS was part of how Steve Jobs offered to settle the matter.