6 ms·

Ballmer also served during the toughest time in Microsoft's history. He took the reigns right before the final ruling in a massive antitrust lawsuit that litera

Ballmer also served during the toughest time in Microsoft's history. He took the reigns right before the final ruling in a massive antitrust lawsuit that literally almost broke the company apart[0]. The DOJ continued to have oversight over Microsoft until 2012[1]. I'm sure Microsoft would have loved to make much bolder decisions during that decade (particularly when it comes to hardware), but they were hardly in a position to do so legally[2]. A lot of the good things Microsoft has (deservedly) received praise for recently under Nadella were started under Ballmer's tenure. Yes, he is not personally responsible for everything that goes on at the company, but it's important to keep that in mind. [0] While the decision was reversed on appeal, Microsoft was literally ordered by the courts to split itself into separate companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/department-of-justices-long-oversight-of-microsoft-to-end/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/depart... [2] Incidentally, the Surface, which now appears to be Microsoft's attempt to clean up the wild west that OEMs have created, was announced right at the end of the DOJ's oversight. I cannot believe that this is a coincidence.

vezycash 11y ago
Your comment and the parent comment hits close to home. The anti trust investigation killed Microsoft's mojo. They never under estimated any one in the past. They were paranoid and always responded to "potential threats" with crappy solution but they responded nonetheless. In my opinion, Google and the iPhone owe their dominance to time granted them by the anti trust suit. The same tactics that got Microsoft in trouble is being used my Google and Apple today. Google services is bundled in Android. There is no alternative browser in chrome OS by design. The default browser can't be changed in IOS(not sure if that's still the case). It's difficult to take risks when everything you do is under a microscope.
- striking 11y ago
  You can install Firefox on Android, and it has proper integration. But the rest of Google Play Services, yeah I see your point.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > You can install Firefox on Android, and it has proper integration. You can (and I do, because it's the only way to block ads without root on Android). But that was literally the same claim that was made against Microsoft - while you could install alternative browsers, you couldn't really uninstall IE. And as parts of IE were factored into separate components for reuse by other applications, the concern was that IE was being turned into part of the operating system. (The difference is that Android's market share, while still dominant, is still not as high as Windows's was back in the 90s[0]. Ditto for iOS, which has a minority market share. But in terms of the software vs. OS components, it's almost exactly the same.) [0] or even as high as the Windows marketshare is today, for that matter.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      It's not the same claim. The claim against Microsoft was that browser and OS dominance had killed competition ("cutting off the oxygen supply" of other browser makers) and was literally distorting the industry. Browser dominance on its own was not the problem. The problem was that Microsoft's strategy was deliberately anti-competitive and monopolistic, and the browser was one symptom of that - not just because it gave MS massive market share, but because it created a technological chokepoint which limited the commercial potential of everyone working in the PC and Internet industries. Remember, MS spent a lot of time and money promoting site/browser technologies like ActiveX that only really worked on Windows PCs, and seem to have been an attempt to look out everyone else. It's hard to argue that iOS or Android are anywhere close to doing the same. Both may be walled gardens, and both have toxic effects. But they're not de facto standards setters, and they can't use their influence to kill competing products at equivalent scale. (They can and have killed or assimilated smaller products - but that's plain unethical behaviour, not clear evidence of monopoly. Taking steps to crush Twitter, WhatsApp, or Facebook would probably count as monopolistic. Killing SmallAppCo is just shady; sad, but true.) If it was found that Apple and Google were colluding, that would be a serious problem - just as both had problems when it was proved they'd made secret agreements about employee mobility and salary negotiations.
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
- mikeash 11y ago
  > The default browser can't be changed in IOS(not sure if that's still the case). Not only can it not be changed, but you can't even ship true alternative browsers at all. You'll find plenty of "alternative browsers" in the App Store, of course. But they're all just UI wrappers around Apple's UIWebView or WKWebView. Apple doesn't allow anyone to ship an alternative browser engine. So even if Apple let you change the default, it really wouldn't be all that interesting.
exelius 11y ago
Right, but Microsoft completely mis-identified their core platform. Windows is not the core platform - Office is. They should have gotten a consistent Office interface on any device with a screen back in 2010. Instead, they embargoed Office on every platform but Windows and a shitty, incompatible and infrequently updated Mac port. They tried to leverage Office to make their other platforms (Windows, Windows Phone, Azure) successful, rather than focus on making sure Office runs on everything and the licensing works.
- parasubvert 11y ago
  The Mac was always an original platform for Office dating back to Word and Excel in 1985. It also was never incompatible. Better than Windows at times (circa 2003 when they had a big team in the Bay Area) and Entourage was better than Outlook's usability. Shitty at times, especially the last several years until Office 2016. With Office 365, they basically get your point. Unfortunately the new generation mostly uses Google Docs and Pages now, but most over 30 still use Office.
megablast 11y ago
Mojo? Or they had to start playing by the rules a little more, and stop cheating the game.

vezycash 11y ago

Your comment and the parent comment hits close to home. The anti trust investigation killed Microsoft's mojo. They never under estimated any one in the past. They were paranoid and always responded to "potential threats" with crappy solution but they responded nonetheless. In my opinion, Google and the iPhone owe their dominance to time granted them by the anti trust suit. The same tactics that got Microsoft in trouble is being used my Google and Apple today. Google services is bundled in Android. There is no alternative browser in chrome OS by design. The default browser can't be changed in IOS(not sure if that's still the case). It's difficult to take risks when everything you do is under a microscope.

striking 11y ago
You can install Firefox on Android, and it has proper integration. But the rest of Google Play Services, yeah I see your point.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > You can install Firefox on Android, and it has proper integration. You can (and I do, because it's the only way to block ads without root on Android). But that was literally the same claim that was made against Microsoft - while you could install alternative browsers, you couldn't really uninstall IE. And as parts of IE were factored into separate components for reuse by other applications, the concern was that IE was being turned into part of the operating system. (The difference is that Android's market share, while still dominant, is still not as high as Windows's was back in the 90s[0]. Ditto for iOS, which has a minority market share. But in terms of the software vs. OS components, it's almost exactly the same.) [0] or even as high as the Windows marketshare is today, for that matter.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    It's not the same claim. The claim against Microsoft was that browser and OS dominance had killed competition ("cutting off the oxygen supply" of other browser makers) and was literally distorting the industry. Browser dominance on its own was not the problem. The problem was that Microsoft's strategy was deliberately anti-competitive and monopolistic, and the browser was one symptom of that - not just because it gave MS massive market share, but because it created a technological chokepoint which limited the commercial potential of everyone working in the PC and Internet industries. Remember, MS spent a lot of time and money promoting site/browser technologies like ActiveX that only really worked on Windows PCs, and seem to have been an attempt to look out everyone else. It's hard to argue that iOS or Android are anywhere close to doing the same. Both may be walled gardens, and both have toxic effects. But they're not de facto standards setters, and they can't use their influence to kill competing products at equivalent scale. (They can and have killed or assimilated smaller products - but that's plain unethical behaviour, not clear evidence of monopoly. Taking steps to crush Twitter, WhatsApp, or Facebook would probably count as monopolistic. Killing SmallAppCo is just shady; sad, but true.) If it was found that Apple and Google were colluding, that would be a serious problem - just as both had problems when it was proved they'd made secret agreements about employee mobility and salary negotiations.
- 72deluxe 11y ago
mikeash 11y ago
> The default browser can't be changed in IOS(not sure if that's still the case). Not only can it not be changed, but you can't even ship true alternative browsers at all. You'll find plenty of "alternative browsers" in the App Store, of course. But they're all just UI wrappers around Apple's UIWebView or WKWebView. Apple doesn't allow anyone to ship an alternative browser engine. So even if Apple let you change the default, it really wouldn't be all that interesting.

exelius 11y ago

Right, but Microsoft completely mis-identified their core platform. Windows is not the core platform - Office is. They should have gotten a consistent Office interface on any device with a screen back in 2010. Instead, they embargoed Office on every platform but Windows and a shitty, incompatible and infrequently updated Mac port. They tried to leverage Office to make their other platforms (Windows, Windows Phone, Azure) successful, rather than focus on making sure Office runs on everything and the licensing works.

parasubvert 11y ago
The Mac was always an original platform for Office dating back to Word and Excel in 1985. It also was never incompatible. Better than Windows at times (circa 2003 when they had a big team in the Bay Area) and Entourage was better than Outlook's usability. Shitty at times, especially the last several years until Office 2016. With Office 365, they basically get your point. Unfortunately the new generation mostly uses Google Docs and Pages now, but most over 30 still use Office.

megablast 11y ago

Mojo? Or they had to start playing by the rules a little more, and stop cheating the game.