Squilliam said:
Doesn't the last line sound like Sony? |
Not really, because they never were in the same monopolistic position as MS has been with their OS in several segments of the software market. MS has been found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour and fined several times.
And it's not just lawyer fluff: this monopolistic position exploitation had a very real, practical effect on the software world.
It's very well known to every web coder that IE's bundling with Windows is the main force that has kept back the internet content from easier developing and prototyping. Their browser stagnated for almost ten years, delivering to most people a sub-par, flawed, feature poor rendition of the HTML standard they declared they were complying to.
That's what you can expect when competition is stifled so that it does not let the quality of the products or services emerge.
It's only because MS's IE is losing ground that web developers can code to a standard again, instead that to an endless compilation of quirks. Ironically even when MS introduced good things into the web development - they were the first to implement the HTTPrequest javascript object that is the base of AJAX programming - their own browser is the worst at it in terms of features and speed.
Similar other examples could be brought forth ( buying their way into ISO fasttracking for an "open" office document standard that only they can correctly implement ) of behaviour that makes sense for their business, but is bad for consumers in general.
Thus there's no morality stigma in my disliking - I don't think morality applies - merely the reasons of an informed consumer.
