Story time:
There was another operating system very much like Windows called OS/2. This operating system was made by IBM and Microsoft. It even had DOS and NT kernel compatibility and is where the NT kernel came from. While MS and IBM were working on OS/2 MS secretly developed Windows and made deals with third-party PC manufacturers like HP and Compaq for them to run Windows and not OS/2. Despite the fact that Microsoft was where it was then because IBM had chosen DOS for its PC operating system until that time.
OS/2 still got an interesting life though. It was widely used as an embedded operating system well into the 2000s. If you ever used an ATM or cash register in the early 2000s you almost certainly used OS/2.
Windows did not get where it is today through organic growth. It did so by standing on the shoulders of giants and dealing under the table.
Admittedly, the morality of this particular point probably relies on further context. On its face, I suppose you’re correct. However, it’s worth pointing out that for instance the only reason DOS was chosen is because Bill Gates’ Mom was on the IBM board (also because the owners of Digital Research blew it, but that’s a story for another time). Further, IBM had funded Microsoft pretty heavily to help development of the NT kernel with super cushy terms because of the aforementioned relationship with the board. So while, yes, on the one hand you could classify this as competition and it’s a little hard to feel bad for giant corporations, on the other hand this was Bill Gates being a twat and taking advantage of what was essentially a favor. There’s a reason the movie about him and Steve Jobs back in the day was called “Pirates of Silicon Valley“.
All of this is 100% correct, but to shed some light on the perspective you’re replying to: this deep into dystopia, slimy business bullshit as opposed to literal dictates from the surveillance state counts as “organic growth” for a lot of people
Story time: There was another operating system very much like Windows called OS/2. This operating system was made by IBM and Microsoft. It even had DOS and NT kernel compatibility and is where the NT kernel came from. While MS and IBM were working on OS/2 MS secretly developed Windows and made deals with third-party PC manufacturers like HP and Compaq for them to run Windows and not OS/2. Despite the fact that Microsoft was where it was then because IBM had chosen DOS for its PC operating system until that time.
OS/2 still got an interesting life though. It was widely used as an embedded operating system well into the 2000s. If you ever used an ATM or cash register in the early 2000s you almost certainly used OS/2.
Windows did not get where it is today through organic growth. It did so by standing on the shoulders of giants and dealing under the table.
Is this actually morally bad? Unless MS had promised otherwise, isn’t it just competition?
Admittedly, the morality of this particular point probably relies on further context. On its face, I suppose you’re correct. However, it’s worth pointing out that for instance the only reason DOS was chosen is because Bill Gates’ Mom was on the IBM board (also because the owners of Digital Research blew it, but that’s a story for another time). Further, IBM had funded Microsoft pretty heavily to help development of the NT kernel with super cushy terms because of the aforementioned relationship with the board. So while, yes, on the one hand you could classify this as competition and it’s a little hard to feel bad for giant corporations, on the other hand this was Bill Gates being a twat and taking advantage of what was essentially a favor. There’s a reason the movie about him and Steve Jobs back in the day was called “Pirates of Silicon Valley“.
All of this is 100% correct, but to shed some light on the perspective you’re replying to: this deep into dystopia, slimy business bullshit as opposed to literal dictates from the surveillance state counts as “organic growth” for a lot of people