It's a valid argument and I don't disagree with much of it, but I still see genius when evaluating Microsoft. They may not be very innovative technologically while having some of the most laughable acquisitions imagineable but they don't have to ace these categories when they're trendsetters in the realm of anti-competition and establishing a conflicted partner network.

Most see Microsoft's products as broken and low quality. What they don't see is the multi-trillion dollar IT support/management industry consisting of 40 million or so IT professionals, half of which are direct Microsoft partners, that is predominantly established on top of their ecosystem. They also don't see these same people as being responsible for funneling 95% of Microsoft's commercial revenue back to them; quid pro quo if you will. Their products create work for people that fix and compensate for broken solutions while these people recommend Microsoft solutions in return.

In this regard, they are indeed pioneers and first-movers. They've legitimately learned how to profit off of defects, hence why their defect density has skyrocketed in the past few decades as evidenced by their ever-inflating update/security patch velocity.

Windows, Office, and Server also had their day in the sun though. Microsoft was the first to really see the market as it was with software, was way ahead of their competition, and was among the first to dominate said market which they still operate in to this day.

Good chat. We don't have to agree on everything. Followed.