Nope, the MS-DOS and Windows market was too big by then to introduce a new incompatible system. Ask OS/2 how it worked out.
> There was no lock in with Macs
Sure there was. Firstly, many schools across the country had been convinced to by Macs through the educational discounts Apple gave, and school bureaucracies like all government bureaucracies move very slowly, so aren't going to switch, but simply maintain and grow the bureaucracy. Secondly, if you had actually invested in a bunch of Mac software and a LaserWriter, the sunk cost fallacy would lead many people to stay in.
And then there's Cognitive Dissonance.
> Have you ever thought that it wasn’t just about the hardware?
Mac software and hardware was inferior until the Intel switch-over. Sure, MacOS was more consistent, but the software available for the platform was worse. And in some categories, practically non-existent compared to Windows.
Almost every single response I see from you in threads is like a paleo-libertarian response that "things are the way they are because they are what the market intended" without almost no insight into how consumers can be manipulated by corporations.
After everything you have seen the US government do with regards to technology, you still want more government power? I haven’t seen anyone on HN that supports the DMCA, laws trying to make encryption illegal, etc.
My fight against government control is because I don’t trust the government. I can more easily leave a company than I can a government.
Why was Apple able to survive the consolidation behind MS DOS and Atari, Commodore, etc. weren’t? They all started around the same place.
Don’t blame Apple for other company’s failures.
There was no lock in with Macs - the same Software was available for Windows and more. Have you ever thought that it wasn’t just about the hardware?
Did Apple have a lock in on marketing that kept Microsoft and Google incapable of marketing their own devices?
Did Apple stop Commodore and Atari from executing?