4 ms·

Windows also won by parasitizing a previously bigger host (Bill Gates’ mother was on IBM’s board), and shutting out competition by forcing vendors not to offer

by acdha 2y ago

Windows also won by parasitizing a previously bigger host (Bill Gates’ mother was on IBM’s board), and shutting out competition by forcing vendors not to offer other companies’ software if they wanted Microsoft licenses at better than retail pricing.

inquirerGeneral 2y ago
[dead]
nine_k 2y ago
This is how MS-DOS and early Windows won. But the first version of MS Excel was written for MacOS. And it's MSO what's holding businesses on Windows, not the other way around.
- orionblastar 2y ago
  MSO doesn't work in WINE at least the latest versions don't.
  - smegger001 2y ago
    I recall being told that office uses undocumented Windows APIs making it harder for groups like WINE and Proton to support them. whether or not thats the intent or a happy accident well...
canucker2016 2y ago
Bill Gates' mother, Mary Gates, was not an IBM board member. She was on the national United Way's executive committee. Also an executive committee member was IBM's Chairman, John Opel. see https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary-gates-64-helped-her-son-start-microsoft.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary-gates-64-... [edit] also Windows OEMs always got lower than retail price for Windows licenses (assuming your volume sold was high enough) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#The_%22Windows_tax%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#... : ==== Microsoft once assessed license fees based on the number of computers an OEM sold, regardless of whether a Windows license was included. Beginning in 1983, Microsoft sold MS-DOS licenses to OEMs on an individually negotiated basis. The contracts required OEMs to purchase a number of MS-DOS licenses equal to or greater than the number of computers sold, with the result of zero marginal cost for OEMs to include MS-DOS. Installing an operating system other than MS-DOS would effectively require double payment of operating system royalties. Also, Microsoft penalized OEMs that installed alternative operating systems by making their license terms less favorable. Microsoft entered into a consent decree in 1994 that barred them from conditioning the availability of Windows licenses or varying their prices based on whether OEMs distributed other operating systems. ... In 2009, Microsoft stated that it has always charged OEMs about $50 for a Windows license on a $1,000 computer. ====
- acdha 2y ago
  You’re right about the boards - it’s been a while but the main point was that this wasn’t just pure open competition for their biggest break. My focus on the licensing was this part which your quote included: “Microsoft penalized OEMs that installed alternative operating systems by making their license terms less favorable”. The consent degree and other legal cases took a while to apply any effective counter pressure, and by that point Microsoft had managed to effectively starve competitors (DR-DOS, GEOS, BeOS, OS/2, etc.) of revenue which would have made the 80s and 90s marketplace more competitive. They knew that staying the default choice for businesses as long as possible meant that those companies would acquire a library of software and training which only worked for their operating systems, and successfully banked on a slow government response.

by acdha 2y ago

inquirerGeneral 2y ago

[dead]

nine_k 2y ago

This is how MS-DOS and early Windows won. But the first version of MS Excel was written for MacOS. And it's MSO what's holding businesses on Windows, not the other way around.

orionblastar 2y ago
MSO doesn't work in WINE at least the latest versions don't.
- smegger001 2y ago
  I recall being told that office uses undocumented Windows APIs making it harder for groups like WINE and Proton to support them. whether or not thats the intent or a happy accident well...

canucker2016 2y ago

Bill Gates' mother, Mary Gates, was not an IBM board member. She was on the national United Way's executive committee. Also an executive committee member was IBM's Chairman, John Opel. see https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary-gates-64-helped-her-son-start-microsoft.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary-gates-64-... [edit] also Windows OEMs always got lower than retail price for Windows licenses (assuming your volume sold was high enough) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#The_%22Windows_tax%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#... : ==== Microsoft once assessed license fees based on the number of computers an OEM sold, regardless of whether a Windows license was included. Beginning in 1983, Microsoft sold MS-DOS licenses to OEMs on an individually negotiated basis. The contracts required OEMs to purchase a number of MS-DOS licenses equal to or greater than the number of computers sold, with the result of zero marginal cost for OEMs to include MS-DOS. Installing an operating system other than MS-DOS would effectively require double payment of operating system royalties. Also, Microsoft penalized OEMs that installed alternative operating systems by making their license terms less favorable. Microsoft entered into a consent decree in 1994 that barred them from conditioning the availability of Windows licenses or varying their prices based on whether OEMs distributed other operating systems. ... In 2009, Microsoft stated that it has always charged OEMs about $50 for a Windows license on a $1,000 computer. ====

acdha 2y ago
You’re right about the boards - it’s been a while but the main point was that this wasn’t just pure open competition for their biggest break. My focus on the licensing was this part which your quote included: “Microsoft penalized OEMs that installed alternative operating systems by making their license terms less favorable”. The consent degree and other legal cases took a while to apply any effective counter pressure, and by that point Microsoft had managed to effectively starve competitors (DR-DOS, GEOS, BeOS, OS/2, etc.) of revenue which would have made the 80s and 90s marketplace more competitive. They knew that staying the default choice for businesses as long as possible meant that those companies would acquire a library of software and training which only worked for their operating systems, and successfully banked on a slow government response.