Sermo Malifer wrote:
>> But nothing they've done lately comes close to the success of their
>> Windows and Office products...
>That's true, but I was reacting to the suggestion that Microsoft was
>going out of business. They need not duplicate their Windows/Office
>monopoly to survive and be successful.
I tend to agree that some of the advocates are overly "optimistic"
regarding the prospect of Micro$oft failing, any time soon.
>>> They didn't get to be where they are by being stupid.
>> No, but let's not chalk it all up to being "smart", either. Most of
>> it is simply the fact that in the PC OS market lent itself to having a
>> de facto standard product, and they got the jump on everyone with
>> IBM's endorsement.
>I blame M$'s competitors for putting the Windows monopoly where it is.
>Most of them were short-sighted, or greedy, or helped M$ by making their
In the applications market, those are valid points.
>The DOS deal with IBM happened 28 years ago. That can't be the
>perpetual reason for the Windows monopoly.
In the OS market, it can, and is, the "perpetual" reason. There
wasn't much anyone could do, once they had that lead (and the
willingness to do anything to protect it).
>> I will concede that Micro$oft are masters of dirty-dealing business
>> tactics. But even that has not helped them, in markets where they do
>> not have the advantage of overwhelming market share.
>They do well enough in other markets. No worse than many other
>successful companies you could name.
They may be no worse than similar companies that dominate a market
with a cash-cow product, like Intel. But I believe they are worse
than most successful companies, in their ability to bring new and
successful products to market.