I don’t believe it was the money that really mattered, but the commitment to provide Office for Mac made a big difference.
But Apple was not prohibited from including other browsers as well. For example, years later, Safari.
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
Even the base model iPhone SE ($399) has an external speaker, bluetooth, and airplay, all of which are capable of playing music while charging at the same time.
What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft.
Had the DOJ not attacked Microsoft we'd have a better, more open phone which would also come out of the box with the ability to play music while charging.
iPhones made in 2012 were only barely better than Pocket PCs made in 2005
Evidence is also how the iPhone struggle to communicate with Windows PCs and everything which isn't Apple.
Evidence is also the fact that out of the box you cannot charge your 1700$ phone while listening to music at the same time.
That you continue to repeat this, despite it being clearly disproven above, is telling.
Where are the airpods? Not even the last model, even 2017 Airpods.. you know just to provide some aftercare to the customer after screwing them so badly
I used it. Everything from the original version that came on little tiny palmtops (Windows CE) to the near final version on things like the compact iPaq.
As a geek I found it interesting, but realistically it sucked.
It was eventually available on some of the early smart phones. It had its chance. It failed. Microsoft kept reinventing it trying to fix it, and it never worked. People preferred the “inferior“ PalmOS.
There’s a reason the iPhone came in and ate everyone’s lunch.
Microsoft had a chance. They were competing. They made changes. They rewrote the UI numerous times. They lost. BAD.
The idea that the Pocket PC was better than the iPhone is demonstrably, by sales, wrong.
The idea that the Pocket PC failed somehow because of the Microsoft antitrust settlement with the government… I don’t understand that one.
Microsoft didn't win on technical merit, they were winning because they were aggressively anti-competitive.
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.
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.
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.
Are you saying that because people didn’t have to buy Windows for their computers since it was included?
They paid in directly. You’d buy your computer for $2000 and Microsoft would get $350 (or whatever). Because of the price Microsoft charged, the price of your computer with artificially high. Because of Microsoft agreements with computer makers, you couldn’t choose NOT to buy Windows. So you had to pay the money. Since you had to buy Windows, there was no price competition.
Even after the antitrust settlement this was still a problem. Remember when netbooks were the fad? Well it’s really hard to sell a $500 laptop that’s good if you’re required to pay Microsoft $250 for Windows. That’s why we actually saw ones that shipped with Lenox. In competition, Microsoft released a cut down version of Windows that was limited that they charged less for.
What do you know, competition worked. That couldn’t happen before the settlement.
Give away your product for free. Now it’s practically impossible for your competitors to sell enough to keep going when there’s a free product out there.
That’s EXACTLY what killed Netscape.
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.