History rarely corrects this kind of story. Gates will be remembered as an innovator and as a great man of his time, who was altruistic enough to give away most of his fortune and dedicate his latest years to humanitarian causes. The chokehold Microsoft created in the 90s IT industry will be a footnote in History.
For a reference of this kind of History effect, compare the common man views of Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. They shared the same period in History, and worked in the same field (the electricity boom). Edison was the astute businessman with shady tactics but also with public success. Tesla, a brilliant scientist, produced the still unchallenged fundamentals for electricity transmission and for AC electric motors. Which one is considered the epitome of innovation? The shady acute businessman.
To be honest, I feel that if History did that, it would be right. I've worked with people who've worked with people who've had Microsoft bully their businesses into submission. But even though it sounds trite, that's their first world problems. Gates is now focusing on third world problems. I'm comfortable with the stranglehold being a footnote so long as it is not completely glossed over.
This view is common. It is the tragedy of negative externalities. Since the damage that MS did to the industry in the 90s was widespread and not easily quantifiable, it is not easily identifiable and as such is not felt.
Do you really think History (as in the practice, not the story) will continue to follow the same rules post-internet as it did pre-internet?
Modeling the future path of that field on its past mechinations seems silly to me. Any sensible model of future history, I think, must be built on novel, untested understandings of the new physics of information, to have even an outside chance of predictive power.
IDK, I feel like this has shifted in the last generation. Nobody is shocked nowadays when you inform them that Columbus was a bad guy, and the same historical rethink in pop culture is happening with Edison.
