> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Those companies are only that big because of profit on non-Microsoft platforms, including these days the web and mobile. For example, Activision (founded to make Atari 2600 games) are being acquired because of their console and mobile properties - the value derived from the PC is there but relatively small and historic. The amounts Microsoft have burned trying to make money from gaming defy belief, instead they seem determined to destroy the viability of the market for everyone.
One reason I am pessimistic about Arm's future is they will struggle to balance raising money for future needed R&D without creating the appearance of being too lucrative a target for a nVidia or SoftBank wanting to play monopoly. That is going to push people to RISC-V. I hope they manage to do something, but they're in for a rough time.
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.