[fidotron]

Indeed. You can see in some of the comments here the American mentality simply could not have made ARM successful because they would have been too busy competing with their own customers. For ARM to take off and be trusted they had to knowingly leave valuable profit margins around for their customers to be able to take advantage of.

The defining question is if the world is better off by having people play that game or the one where everyone tries to takeover everything all the time.

[ethbr1]

Microsoft minted many fortunes by leaving valuable profit margins around for third party developers.

It's a longer game, so hopefully ARM employees still own some equity.

[fidotron]

Where are these third party developers that made decent money and Microsoft didn’t subsequently try to eat their piece of the pie?

It is a repeated pattern and people are not stupid. (See also the Sherlock phenomenon with Apple). Valve, for example, have to invest in proton as the ultimate back up plan. For me personally that has proven quite helpful, but your initial business has to be wildly successful for you to be able to play defensive moves like that.

This leads to a situation where mid sized companies are few in number and unstable.

[bemusedthrow75]

> and Microsoft didn’t subsequently try to eat their piece of the pie?

That second part wasn't in the original claim, though. The parent comment is right. Sure, 21st century Microsoft has come for the utilities market, for the Lotus-to-Evernote market, etc., etc., but an entire software industry really did spring up in the eighties through to the early 2000s filling gaps in Microsoft software.

[ethbr1]

Oracle, SAP, Adobe, VMware, Intuit, AutoDesk, Activision Blizzard, Epic Games, Electronic Arts, just to list a few still surviving companies.

Microsoft absolutely expands into areas it considers strategic profit or capability centers. E.g. office productivity, web browser, database, gaming, etc.

But they, and especially early/smaller Microsoft (90s-00s), left a ton of money on the table for the good of the platform. Because they realized they couldn't do it all and be best-of-everything.

The fact that Microsoft can deploy its level of resources (e.g. crush Lotus) when they decide to doesn't mean that they always decide to.

[fidotron]

> Oracle, SAP, Adobe, VMware, Intuit, AutoDesk, Activision Blizzard, Epic Games, Electronic Arts

SQL Server, Dynamics, TrueType/Silverlight, Hyper-V, Microsoft Money, Softimage was owned by MS, Activision are in the process of being bought by MS, Epic and EA both compete with MS.

In the case of the above Microsoft has tried to compete with, kill, or acquire all of them. That's using others to do the hard work of market discovery.

[ethbr1]

Indeed, Microsoft has offerings in many of these categories, one reason I specifically mentioned databases.

And yet, these companies are all extremely large and healthy.

Microsoft acquiring Activision Blizzard is a great example, because it speaks to the modern competitive landscape.

Microsoft isn't "using others to do the hard work of market discovery." Activision Blizzard has a USD$72b market cap.

That's a hyperscaled conglomerate attempting to buy a still-huge company.

And if you want to suggest Microsoft's behavior is unique in that... I'd suggest we start with redressing the lax competitive laws that (a) make Microsoft feel it needs to do that to compete with its rivals & (b) allow Microsoft to buy Activision Blizzard.

[bemusedthrow75]

> For ARM to take off and be trusted they had to knowingly leave valuable profit margins around for their customers to be able to take advantage of.

Exactly this.