11 ms·
In any event it was state intervention. When that happens the victory/defeat of a company becomes political , not technical or due to financial or business acum
by GDC7 5y ago
In any event it was state intervention. When that happens the victory/defeat of a company becomes political , not technical or due to financial or business acumen.
The worst thing is that the majority of the American population would have not found themselves competing against Bill Gates for anything, except those in DC who had him as their #1 enemy in order to win their size measuring contest.
Matter of fact the small individual consumer and small businesses were getting away robbing Microsoft blind as they didn't do anything to stop piracy.
Microsoft would just treat it as free marketing or just pass those losses onto big paying customers such as the Fortune 500 companies, thus compensating for piracy losses at the base of the pyramid.
After DOJ intervention nowadays we have Apple shipping a 1700$ phone which is completely closed off and out of the box is impossible to charge while listening to music at the same time. Irony if you think about how passionate Jobs was about music
- jen20 5y agoWhat exactly are you talking about? My iPhone 13 is simultaneously charging and playing music right this second - while writing this post. Do at least try to keep things rooted in fact, despite your emotions.
- macintux 5y agoI think there's a point there about what comes in the box. If this is your first iPhone, your first Bluetooth-capable device, yes, you're stuck with awkward compromises without spending more money. Still, for most people it's not their first such device, so they already typically have their own infrastructure of chargers and BT headsets etc.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoApple has certainly slimmed down what comes with an iPhone, but from the cheapest single port iPhone to the most expensive, they all can charge and play music at the same time without spending or acquiring anything else.
- teakettle42 5y ago> After DOJ intervention nowadays we have Apple shipping a 1700$ phone which is completely closed off and out of the box is impossible to charge while listening to music at the same time. Even the base model iPhone SE ($399) has an external speaker, bluetooth, and airplay, all of which are capable of playing music while charging at the same time. What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft.
- GDC7 5y ago> What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft. Had the DOJ not attacked Microsoft we'd have a better, more open phone which would also come out of the box with the ability to play music while charging. iPhones made in 2012 were only barely better than Pocket PCs made in 2005
- redler 5y agoThe persistence of affront at the removal of the headphone port never ceases to impress, even on a time scale of many years.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoHad the DOJ not attacked Microsoft, we would have had a more open future? That's... let's just call that a minority opinion, unsupported by the available evidence.
- GDC7 5y agoEvidence is Pocket PC Evidence is also how the iPhone struggle to communicate with Windows PCs and everything which isn't Apple. Evidence is also the fact that out of the box you cannot charge your 1700$ phone while listening to music at the same time.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoYou know, the iPhone is not the only option out there...
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago> In any event it was state intervention. When that happens the victory/defeat of a company becomes political , not technical or due to financial or business acumen. Microsoft didn't win on technical merit, they were winning because they were aggressively anti-competitive.
- GDC7 5y agoHow can you be anti competitive when your software is free?
- macintux 5y agoThat’s practically the definition of being anti-competitive. Leveraging a monopoly to fund other products to destroy the companies that make them.
- GDC7 5y agoAnti trust laws were made to protect consumers, not paper-millionaires shareholders of other compenies. There wasn't an organic hatred against Microsoft, people were teaching courses on how to create a startup aimed at getting acquired by them and retire early. It was a DC play from people who knew nothing about software but were jelous of what they were reading on Fortune and Forbes.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago> Anti trust laws were made to protect consumers, not paper-millionaires shareholders of other compenies. And consumers were harmed by one company controlling 97% of the desktop market, when its would-have-been competitors had better product but couldn't compete because it cheated.
- GDC7 5y ago> And consumers were harmed by one company controlling 97% of the desktop market When the 97% is potentially all free, then I don't where's the monopoly, unless you also include in the definition of monopoly having a special place in people's hearts after you gave them such gift. People made a choice to pay for convenience, but if you looked around you'd find ways to get Microsoft products for free.