By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

MS was dominate on the PC because they succeeded in getting a solid OS for a long period of time. Windows 98 and second addition pretty much solidified MS position as the OS of choice.  During that time there were a lot of challenger but none came close. After that it was more consumer not wanting to change more than MS doing any real dirty tactics.  You can blame users not wanting to try something new or different more than MS, at least when it comes to the OS on PC.

Nothing you have stated actually changes Zero statement.  People were giving choice back in the day and and they continue to have choice today but they continue to chose Windows.  So MS did not act like they owned the PC space, they continued to keep a product that provided all the tools needed to run a PC including legacy devices which many business and users needed for their daily life.

Just being an alternative is not enough for most users, you clearly have to be above the reigning champ in order to claim marketshare.  Its the same thing in the console space.  MS cannot just offer an alternative against Sony and Nintendo since they are the leaders in that space.  MS must offer something above what the competition is doing in the market. 

While this is the understanding of most at this point, and could be the rare circumstance it's actually true, it reminds me way too much of all the other stories like this that turned out to be false narratives.

Like prior to AMD Ryzen, everyone was buying Intel for over a decade and it was said that was simply because Intel chips were so superior. That was the story, until AMD sued Intel more recently for billions and won because AMD found out that Intel was doing illegal deals behind the scenes all this time. That's not to say it's the only reason Intel had so much market share, since their tech was legit better, but they went way out of their way to hobble their competition so they wouldn't have to worry about competing much at all. Which of course led to $2000 8 core Intel chips and 4 core mainstream chip stagnation with pitiful performance gains for years and years.

Maybe this was the case with Windows, maybe not, but a similar type of story even existed with XB, until recently when the XB documentary explained what really went on. Since 2000 it was said to just be MS wanting to get into console gaming, when it was really because MS wanted to stop Sony and PS from growing and potentially getting into MS dominated markets eventually. So MS created XB as a roadblock. Now MS wants to take the entire market with Game Pass and seems to have made it clear they'll just subsidize their way to a monopoly since Sony or Nin can't compete with that. The difference here is that none of this was illegal.

While MS may have started off legit with Windows, maybe, they sure haven't operated like that for a very long time since in any space. Which can't help but make you wonder about their Windows monopoly. Illegal deals or just sleazy tactics, MS has been extremely controlling and monopolizing for a very long time now.

We can maybe to our hearts content but if no one has sued MS to this day on Windows, I highly doubt MS really had to do any sleazy tactics to keep Windows dominate on PC.  All these companies once they become dominate in a market has a history of controlling and monopolizing.  From Sony to Nintendo, each has a history so lets not try to make it appear this is something special to MS.  Instead its just business.  Once a any company gains a lead in any industry, they will make moves to continue to lead.  What I would like for you to backup is exactly how has MS been extremely controlling and monopolizing compared to the other companies.  I will be the first to say MS has never been a saint company but neither has any of their competition as well.