And therein lies the problem that even Microsoft admirers ought to recognise - monopolies throttle competition, and no competition means precious little innovation.Originally Posted by caravel
I have no doubt that Steve Jobs would be a worse monopolist than Bill Gates - given how he treated Woz, there isn't a philanthropic bone in his body. But because Apple blew their chance, they have to innovate and compete. The Linux and other open source communities do the same. Bill doesn't. The MS approach is to smash competition rather than out-innovate it.
Microsoft at 55% of market share would be a much better consumer proposition than at its current 94% share. MS customers themselves would be much better off. And it's perfectly possible to have cross-platform standards by agreement rather than by dictat.
Here's an interesting example of how Bill Gates' philosophy works to the detriment of the wider populace.
Bookmarks