The problem with a clear winner is that they don't create defacto standards. They create proprietary standards. I want standards to be open and either produced through consensus or trade associations.
I remember the days of a wide open industry and it really kind of sucked, seemed then you needed at least two systems to be able to use all the software you wanted because you could garauntee that the best of breed of at least one type wouldn't be made for System X.
With modern compilers and object libraries, it is much easier to cross compile and would be easier still if interfaces were not as proprietary.
Having a standard really helps avoid that, but competition is good, keeping whoever is on the top of the heap on their toes is good for everybody, having alternatives is great.
If one company can patent what becomes a critical standard, then they can shut out the competition. I'd rather not even risk that. It is bad enough having one entity that can tax me. I don't want two. The only way I'd want that level of standardization is if the OS is open (e.g., Linux or FreeBSD).
That's why Bill won, and why things wouldn't be that much different than they are now if Steve had won.
Oh, I agree that Steve winning wouldn't be ideal, either. I don't want a winner. I want competition.