> So they have inferior products than the competition?
In some cases yes, they did and had & tried to squash that competition. Less so today, since there's little competition where they dominate, but MS for example has a well documented history of doing just that[1].
I think you're conflating such behavior with not making any good products, which is obviously not the case.
I know about the past- I still tend to believe that the better product wins.
You're pointing at Internet Explorer in 2001 as to why Windows is the #1 desktop operating system today? It was a better product- with or without this shitty business practice 20 years ago.
> why Windows is the #1 desktop operating system today?
Because nobody's even attempting to compete in that space anymore. Many would argue BeOS was better, or some UNIX variant was better etc. The point is MS has sprung into its monopoly position via many at least questionable tactics & then used that position to keep others at bay. That message has been received & nowdays nobody on the desktop is even trying because going against per-installed Windows on every PC you can commonly buy is hard to beat.
Intel had a worse product when AMD came out with 64bit CPUs and so they used their position & partnerships to play dirty, Apple arguably does not play fair against Spotify etc.
That does not mean the better product never wins. Nobody said that. It's just that it hardly wins every time, like it should.
In some cases yes, they did and had & tried to squash that competition. Less so today, since there's little competition where they dominate, but MS for example has a well documented history of doing just that[1].
I think you're conflating such behavior with not making any good products, which is obviously not the case.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....