"In the case of Windows the solution turned out to be
government intervention."
I think that's debatable. The solution was innovation. People realized that they couldn't beat MS at their own game so they changed the rules. Open Source, Apple, Mozilla, They all changed the rules of the game and now MS is finding it hard to compete in the space they created. I actually don't think Government intervention had that much of an effect at all.
Well, except for the fact that government intervention forced Microsoft to keep Office for Mac viable, along with providing operation funds that kept Apple alive.
You're correct with OSS, that's succeeding despite how broken software patents are.
I read that Cult of the Mac book, and in it Leander seemed to indicate Jobs' intention was to make sure people believed that Office would still work for Mac, and that the cash investment was a way of doubling down on the notion that Macs weren't going anywhere.
This is all based on my knowledge off hand / Wikipedia, so I definitely don't consider it bullet proof. If the government intervened, I'd definitely want to know.
Microsoft profited from conditions that were available at the time Microsoft was conceived.
It seems to me that the business model that Microsoft was founded on, involved using it's ubiquity to create of new markets via proprietary software products. Proprietary software requires a closed source model, and (if sold) also involves enforcing artificial scarcity.
Operating a software company in this way, is entirely compatible with a business model that involves creating monopolies and killing competition - especially when a company's as ubiquitous as Microsoft was(/is).
I think government intervention played a part in showing that there's a line of acceptability (that MS crossed) - and the part it played shouldn't be downplayed.
--
Cut to the present day, and the conditions have continued evolving to a point where Microsoft's business model isn't as viable anymore. I don't think anyone specifically chose to change the rules.
Logic and necessity have forced a cultural change, which has helped more people to rethink how software is sold - selling software as IP isn't sustainable; economics has evolved and new markets, ecosystems and concepts are creating conditions which leave Microsoft out of its depth.
This articles misses opportunities to dive deeply into every concept it proposes. Even when discussing the use of Facebook credits, you really miss an opportunity to discuss Facebook credits as a competitor to PayPal, and a scenario where Facebook does for our online spending what they propose to do for email with their Messaging system. It's a shame that you put this article together so quickly without adding any depth.
For example, Facebook could use the same logic they used in their live Messaging launch for our online spending - that by combining our social graph with how we spend money online, we can better learn from, and organize our spending. They could easily compete with services like Mint and Blippy by providing interesting data about what we are purchasing, and what our friends are purchasing. The opportunity to combine this with Facebook Places makes this a likely scenario - a lot more likely than the childish idea of forcing Credits for all FB connect sites simply to enforce a monopoly.
Heck, I'd like to see Facebook credits be more flexible than they are now. In particular, I'd like to be able to use FB credits to pay people for work... I've got a suspicion that this would undercut mechanical Turk.
I guess the main reason they won't let webmasters pay out FB credits is that the first app people would build with it would be a gambling app... Too bad.
It doesn't make it clear it's fictional event. If I said "In 2014 taxes to be raised to 70%" most people I daresay would think "Who announced that?" and go to read more. It's sounds exactly like a factual statement. The article title is absolutely misleading and I agree that it's linkbait (furthermore I don't think it has any useful content either).
EDIT: I clicked on the link because I hoped to see what Facebook had to say about their rationale in making such a decision and to hopefully find peoples reactions to it. Instead I find one persons useless pondering about where Facebook may head in a few years. Linkbait!
It's a present-tense announcement about 2014. Not, "In 2014, Facebook will..." or "In 2014, Facebook plans to..."
For another, four years! What's the last time Facebook or anyone in that space has made any kind of announcement that far in advance? How often does anything that far out show up in HN except for hand-waved claims that some experiment could result in a product in 5 or 10 or however many years the writer is pulling out of his ass? :)
