tcmay,
re: These reasons all combine to explain the success of Microsoft in the _applications_ area, besides just the OS area.
Some would argue that the MS success in applications was funded by their monopoly profits from their OS sales, and eventually their monopoly profits from MS Office. And that many companies just got out of the business of competing with MS because of their advantage. MS could throw so many resources at an application that, eventually, they were almost sure to win. Or later on they could bundle the application into Office (essentially for free to the end user), or include it in Windows.
A case in point, many years ago I was using Harvard Graphics presentation software. A great program (IMHO) at that time. But along came MS Power Point as a free bundled product with Office, an inferior product (again MHO), but it was there on almost every computer. Harvard Graphics did a slow but steady exit.
Now, is there any company that would waste resources competing in presentation software? A "Power Point presentation" has become almost a generic term for any PC presentation. And, pardon me, but I still think Power Point is a POS program, awkward to use with mediocre results. I wonder what presentation software programs might have been developed by different talent at different companies if the marketplace had been a level playing field. There probably would be some very nifty programs.
I agree that MS can put together some very good software when faced with competition. But once they win a space, improvements in the products are few and far between.
This from a Microsoft shareholder. I can see both side of the debate taking place in Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's courtroom.
John |
