This article, and Google's and Bing's AI overviews for "how did microsoft kill off beos", disagree with that premise:

https://lowendmac.com/myturn/02/0403.html

(Edited to add, another more detailed article: https://macfolkloreradio.com/be/)

People make this claim about a lot of software (Netscape being the poster child) but typically whenever I look into it, the nuanced answer turns out to be "Microsoft may have thrown it's weight around, but the product largely failed on it's own merits."

Except for education, you had to buy a browser. You could go to a CompUSA and buy a copy of Netscape Navigator.

Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer for free with Windows, essentially destroying Netscape’s business overnight.

Sure, and there was a huge antitrust trial about it too, and we all knew how it turned out. The trial surfaced a whole bunch of shady stuff, but that was more related to them abusing their monopoly position (i.e. "throwing their weight around"). Netscape died because:

1) Browsers were destined to be a commodity, given the first browsers (like Mosaic) were effectively free, and even then it was clear that a browser would be as critical a component of a consumer OS as, say, a file explorer or a calculator.

2) Netscape simply was an inferior product compared to IE and other browsers like Opera (which survived despite IE being free and Microsoft's shenanigans, and is a thing to this day.)

> Netscape simply was an inferior product compared to IE

The book of the battle - Competing for the Future - makes it clear how much of a mess Netscape was in internally

Essentially they had alternate code bases for every other version of the browser and we forever porting feature and bugs between the two (and often forgetting and so getting regressions)

You're right. On one hand he has saved millions of lives and nearly eradicated some diseases in developing countries. On the other hand we could have had another computer operating system. Really tough to balance.

For the sake of preventing perverse incentives, I would encourage you to just make this claim in discussions of BeOS or perhaps early Windows, and not when Bill's philanthropy comes up.

Otherwise other billionaires will think: "If I get into philanthropy, people will take it as an opportunity to publicize un-flattering facts about me."

His business practices in the 90s and 00s were terrible.

His actions since then have been far better.

The hate he gets now tend to be from people attacking his more recent actions. "Trying to cure malaria - clearly mind control" sort of stuff.

Well, his company does help Israel in its genocide against Palestinians.

the gates foundation?

Microsoft.