[crmd]

This is why tech conglomerates are anti-competitive and need to be broken up. There is no reason a leading operating system company should be allowed to also be a word processing, video conferencing, and music-selling company. They will leverage their control of the operating system business to gain unearned competitive advantage in the unrelated markets.

[bluGill]

> There is no reason a leading operating system company should be allowed to also be a word processing, video conferencing, and music-selling company.

If I write a new OS how will you force the "word processing, video conferencing, and music-selling" companies to write code for it? If they don't write the above my OS is worthless, but if my OS fails in the market anyway they just wasted a lot of money. This is why OS companies tend to have the other things, their OS cannot exist in a vacuum and the only way to ensure they have those needed tools is to write them themselves.

[btilly]

You work deals for early access to your OS, and work to make your OS backwards compatible.

Nobody wants to try to be selling consumer software that is optimized for the out of date and unsupported version of the OS.

[bluGill]

That only works if you are big enough. If you are BeOS trying to get your new better OS going you don't have the power to make any deals. For that matter Microsoft wasn't big enough, WordPerfect was going after IBM's OS/2.

[btilly]

Let me check what came out in court.

https://redmondmag.com/articles/2014/04/28/court-nixes-novel...

The case brought to light an Oct. 3, 1994 memo from then-Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, who indicated that Microsoft should withhold namespace extension APIs in Windows 95 from its competitors, WordPerfect and IBM, in order to gain market advantage for Microsoft Word.

In other words, your revisionist history is wrong. Microsoft really was big enough. We know that because WordPerfect asked for early access to Windows 95. It was Microsoft who turned them down. (And no, I don't believe Gate's testimony about security. I think that Gates was bamboozling the judge, and the judge bought it.)

(I had misremembered which court case brought that memo to light. But regardless, it was obvious to the whole industry at the time. Incidentally this memo came while Microsoft was under a consent decree signed on July 25, 1994 with the Justice Department to not try to maintain their monopoly by tying specific products to Windows. Technically, they didn't here, but they were walking the line. They crossed the line with IE though, and that later resulted in the Netscape loss.)

As for BeOS, the question was how a LEADING operating system company was supposed to cope with getting software for the next version of their OS. No matter how many good things we can say about BeOS, they never got to the point of being a leading operating system company.