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.
The Microsoft Monopoly Ruling Aftermath: Why Microsoft Didn't Split | Time
A Judge Ordered Microsoft to Split. Here's Why It's Still a Single Company
It was Friday, Nov. 5, 1999 when then-Microsoft CEO Bill Gates got the bad news. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had declared that his company was a monopoly. And not just any monopoly, but the very worst kind: one that uses its power to squash would-be rivals before they’re even out of the gate. At the time, Microsoft packaged its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating systems, which gave Microsoft an incredible advantage over rivals like Netscape in an era when dial-up Internet meant that downloading and installing alternative web browsers was a slog at best.
“It’s actually hard to imagine how, for Microsoft, it could have come out any worse,” TIME wrote in a Nov. 15, 1999 cover story on Jackson’s decision. But Jackson wasn’t done yet — the declaration that Microsoft was a monopolist was only the first half of his decision. Jackson’s conclusions and remedy wouldn’t come until April and June of the next year, respectively, after Gates had already stepped down as CEO and transitioned into the newly created role of “chief software architect.”
“Assuming he says yea [to the question of whether Microsoft’s monopoly was used to violate antitrust laws]–a near certainty considering Friday’s findings–he can impose a remedy as far-reaching as the total dismemberment of the Gates empire,” TIME wrote in 1999. “The gamut of possible outcomes runs from a mild go-forth-and-sin-no-more to the truly Draconian stuff: forcing Microsoft to share its Windows source code with its competitors or carving up the company into the so-called Baby Bills.” (“Baby Bills” was a clever riff on the “Baby Bells” born of the 1982 breakup of the Bell telephone system.)
In 2000, Judge Jackson took the harsher path, decreeing that Microsoft should be split into two halves, one dedicated to Windows and the other to everything else Microsoft.
So why aren’t there two Microsofts today?
Jackson’s word was far from final. The case found its way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Jackson’s remedy and accused him of unethical conduct after it was http://news.com.com/Former%20judge%20defends%20his%20bid%20to%20break%20up%20Microsoft/2100-1014_3-5755593.html">revealed he had private conversations with reporters about the trial while it was still ongoing. Microsoft would settle the case with the Department of Justice in November of 2001 by agreeing to make it easier for Microsoft’s competitors to get their software more closely integrated with the Windows operating system — a tough pill for Microsoft to swallow, but hardly on the same level as a forced breakup.
These days, it’s harder to see Microsoft as the big monopolist bully Judge Jackson once described. Microsoft Windows operating systems still dominate the PC OS market, but PC OSes are less important than they’ve ever been before, diminishing Microsoft’s ability to use Windows’ market share to make life harder for its rivals. Thanks to the rise of high-speed Internet, web-based solutions and cloud computing in general, it doesn’t really matter what OS you use — Facebook and Gmail don’t care if you’re accessing them from Windows, OS X or Linux. On top of that, we do more of our daily computing on mobile devices like smartphones and tablets, a sphere that’s owned not by Microsoft but by rivals Apple and Google. (Interestingly, that latter company has increasingly run afoul of antitrust regulators, particularly in Europe, where a four-year investigation of Google’s potential abuse of its dominance in search to favor its own secondary products over those of its competitors was just reopened. As the power has shifted from Microsoft to its rivals, so have the watchful eyes of regulators.)
Sure, there have been fresh calls to split up Microsoft — except they’re not coming from regulators, but from Microsoft stockholders and analysts, surely inspired by the trend of corporate spinoffs that’s already hit massive players in tech like eBay, HP and now, potentially, security and storage firm Symantec. Microsoft, the spinoff advocates say, would be better off jettisoning its consumer-facing products, like the Xbox and its Bing search engine, so it can focus on enterprise solutions for corporate customers.
Will we ever see the birth of the Baby Bills? Maybe, but not for a long while: Microsoft’s newest CEO, Satya Nadella, hasn’t even had the reins for a full year yet, but he’s already well underway in changing course to a mostly software-oriented, platform-agnostic company. Microsoft’s stockholders seem to be willing to give Nadella some time to enact his vision, which could preserve the single Microsoft that’s been around since Gates and Paul Allen founded it in 1975 — a single company, even if that’s not so threatening anymore.
How many times have you ever heard there's no point in suing because they're too rich and powerful and you'll never win? Way too often. That doesn't mean people don't sue from time to time, and even against giants they do win here and there, but even here with MS, after losing, they conveniently are able to appeal and get the result they want. I'm sure nobody thinks any funny business went on behind the scenes, especially since the original judge themselves was doing something they shouldn't have been. Corruption is the name of the game for most at the top in whatever sector they operate.