By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - A History of Microsoft's AntiCompetitive Behavior

WereKitten on 23 April 2009
vlad321 said:
Jo21 said:
vlad321 said:

Alright. Do you realize what Microsoft has actually done though? Bill Gates has single-handedly brought a cimputer into everyone's home. Unlike Apple he let anyone who could build a PC use windows, drastically lowering the price of computers.

We owe the state of the world quite literally to Microsoft and Microsoft alone. They brought acomputer nto every house.

 

then again he have barred any other third party.

 there is no support for linux even its now a nicer OS.

 

Again, because of him everyone has access to a computer and internet. We're so far ahead solely because of Microsoft.

Proof of this?

If MS hadn't had a monopoly on the OS market, do you really think that more competition would have held back the quality of computer mass-products?

As for the internet, do you realize that MS was against it, and that their stance was that the future was a loosely connected set of proprietary infrastructures instead? In 1993 I was happily surfing the web from the Unix systems in my University. Meanwhile Windows lacked a proper net stack for their home products (16 bit trumpet winsock), simply borrowed the BSD one for NT and kept trying to push its own mail/file/message infrastructure at the enterprise level. That is, until they were forced to recognize the error of their ways and bought what would become Internet Explorer.

Edit: gee, alephnull almost wrote the same word by word :) anyway, it's nice to see someone else remembering the actual facts, not the revised history.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Around the Network
Staude on 23 April 2009
ymeaga1n said:
shio said:
Microsoft is the scum of the earth with many of their unethical business pratices, nothing new. I'm glad that MS were forced to make Internet Explorer optional on Windows 7.

lol. No one forced MS to make it option. They did it on their own.

 

 

No they didn't. They were forced to do it by court order.



Check out my game about moles ^

mjc2021 on 23 April 2009

Who cares? Microsoft dominated the market by offering quality software. It's not without its problems but the same can be said about everything.



WereKitten on 23 April 2009
mjc2021 said:
Who cares? Microsoft dominated the market by offering quality software. It's not without its problems but the same can be said about everything.

The whole point of the thread is that being anticompetitive means you are not aimimg at competing by offering a generally better product. When Win95 came out, IBM OS2 was an arguably better OS and it could run win16 applications on top of a better desktop environment. MS dealt a fair amount of backstabbing (google for the whole story about the MS/IBM deal) and the worst product came out on top.

Strategies like FUD, "embrace, extend, extiguish" and lock-in add no real practical value for the consumer. On the contrary they generally limit options for development and economic expansion of smaller enterprises.

We actually have to thank Apache, Firefox, Opera and other competitors if MS was forced to work again on its stale IE product to try to keep pace with the advancement in the web development.

 



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

alephnull on 23 April 2009
WereKitten said:

Edit: gee, alephnull almost wrote the same word by word :) anyway, it's nice to see someone else remembering the actual facts, not the revised history.

On at least 2 occasions I have been about to correct someone and there I find WereKitten already on top of it with everything I was going to point out. Only more throughly. And less arrogantly. Now you know how it feels :)

 



Around the Network
alephnull on 23 April 2009
WereKitten said:
mjc2021 said:
Who cares? Microsoft dominated the market by offering quality software. It's not without its problems but the same can be said about everything.

The whole point of the thread is that being anticompetitive means you are not aimimg at competing by offering a generally better product. When Win95 came out, IBM OS2 was an arguably better OS and it could run win16 applications on top of a better desktop environment. MS dealt a fair amount of backstabbing (google for the whole story about the MS/IBM deal) and the worst product came out on top.

Strategies like FUD, "embrace, extend, extiguish" and lock-in add no real practical value for the consumer. On the contrary they generally limit options for development and economic expansion of smaller enterprises.

 

You did it again :) (not complaining)



realill on 23 April 2009

Once Microsoft have killed Netscape they have not working on their IE for several years in row and browser market was in stagnation. Hope it will not happen to the gaming market.



Play my LittleBigLove level: search keywords "LittleBigLove realil"

LJ (Russian): http://realill.livejournal.com

ItsaMii on 23 April 2009

Mr. alephnull I would abandon all hopes for intelligent discussion if I were you. You provided a nice article that 95% of the users did not bother to read.

There is a difference between driving your competitors out of business by offering lower prices or higher quality products and killing the competition using illegal methods. However the best you got so far were generic answers like "so what, every company aim to be number 1", "they deserve it, if they got where they are it is because they are the best in the industry" and "Mr. Gates donates money to the poor so any critics to Microsoft business practices are not valid".

It doesn`t matter if it is about Apple, Nintendo or Microsoft, these business practices should be discussed and criticized. MS may deserve praise for several other of its activities (Ok, I admit I am not serious on this one), but that should not make their illegal activities acceptable.

By the way, my favorite state of nature (if they were real) would be Locke`s. Even so I would chose fear of being murdered over living in a tree house alone.



Satan said:

"You are for ever angry, all you care about is intelligence, but I repeat again that I would give away all this superstellar life, all the ranks and honours, simply to be transformed into the soul of a merchant's wife weighing eighteen stone and set candles at God's shrine."

alephnull on 23 April 2009
Legend11 said:
alephnull said:
disolitude said:
Name me 1 company that doesn't have questionable practices?

Remember the HP internal spying incident where the CEO spied on its board of directors with phone tabs?

MS is overly competitive for sure...but they employ many people...provide charity donations the size of small countries GDP and believe it or not...in most cases push the industry they are involved with forward.

 

There is something you should know about charities. I was raised in the West Palm Beach area and there is something called the charity circuit. Basically, a different charity holds a party/gala each night which allows people to throw lavish parties in a tax deductible way. Most of the time these charities barely break even on these parties^M^M^M^M^M^M^Mfundraisers. I think industry standard is 15% of the money taken in by charities on average actually makes it to it's cause.

There are some good charities like Oxfam, and I'm sure the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation does occasionally do good work. But if you think about it, handing his MS shares over to a non-profit trust under his control was the best way for him to avoid taxes and diversify his holdings. He is the richest man in the world, so he cannot pull the usual shenanigans as the politics are delicate.


Look we get it you don't like Microsoft but at least give the man credit for doing something good with his money instead of trying to spin it with absolutely no proof to fit your agenda.  If you think he's trying to pull a fast one then provide proof, otherwise give credit where it's due.

 

1) Bill Gates is not Microsoft.

2) People using "charity" as a means of tax avoidance is an annoyance of mine separate from MS and I'm sorry people seem to be ignoring what I am saying because I stated them in this thread. I think it's a bit difficult for people to believe if they haven't experienced these events first had.

3) I am merely suggesting that any wealth management consultant would probably suggest to him to do exactly as he is doing in order to preserve his estate. In this light his actions may be viewed as slightly less saintly.

 



heruamon on 23 April 2009

What a bunch of crock...sorry, but M$ has no responsiblity to "allow" some non-competitive comapnies to take market share...this isn't a darn charity.



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder