6 ms·

Arguably yes. Microsoft never tried to stop users from running whatever software they wanted on Windows, they just made it more inconvenient in some cases to ge

Arguably yes. Microsoft never tried to stop users from running whatever software they wanted on Windows, they just made it more inconvenient in some cases to get that software.

tptacek 17y ago
"I will use my operating system monopoly to put you out of business if you don't assist me in putting an unrelated competitor of ours out of business" is worse to you than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device"? I don't like Objective C either, but I don't take it that far.
- akmiller 17y ago
  Microsoft, as all companies would, is going to use their successful product(s) to push other products that they create. They had 95%+ of the OS market and simply wanted to push the use of their browser to those individuals. That doesn't and never has seemed like a dirty tactic to me. Apple pushes its own products over its competitors on the iPhone. You won't see Opera on the default dock bar on the iPhone anytime soon...it may never even be approved to be in the app store. Microsoft may have made it tough for their competition (and I'm sure they crossed the line many times as you mention) but they certainly aren't telling the folks at Mozilla now that Firefox must be re-written in .Net or they aren't going to allow it to run on their platform!
  - MichaelGG 17y ago
    Well, Windows Phone 7 only allows verified CLI bytecode apps, which practically speaking means Firefox won't be compiling for it anytime soon. But MS doesn't care how you compile, just as long as the bytecode checks out safe.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      And Windows Phone 7 is not a dominant player in any segment.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    > Microsoft, as all companies would, is going to use their successful product(s) to push other products that they create Please, keep in mind that if the successful product is effectively a monopoly, then this conduct is not only immoral. It's also illegal.
- skywalker 17y ago
  "I will use my operating system monopoly to put you out of business if you don't assist me in putting an unrelated competitor of ours out of business" is worse to you than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device"? What about this: "I will use my mobile operating system prestige to put your mobile company out of business if you don't assist me in putting a competitor of ours, Adobe, out of the mobile app business". The word "monopoly" doesn't add much. People could develop for MacOS back then when Microsoft did that, but nobody used MacOS. Likewise, people can develop for Android now, but nobody uses android.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Sorry to be so presumptious but I don't think you've thought this through. Microsoft threatened to drive companies out of the computer industry. There are still plenty of other viable mobile platforms to develop for if the iPhone doesn't work out for you.
    - skywalker 17y ago
      What I mean is that it is much more than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device". You also haven't thought this through. It has many more long term implications than the language choice. And we have a disagreement about what viable mobile platform means. For example, "Gameloft sells 400 times more games on iPhone than it does on Android." http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/29757/gameloft-cutting-android-development-investment http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/29757/gameloft-cutting-andro... There isn't much of a mobile games market outside the iPhone. Unless you want to develop children games for the DS. And then you would need to wear a suit to sign a contract with Nintendo. And guess what, they don't sign more than X contracts a year, where X is a very low number. So you could be out of luck. The point is that if the iPhone is the most lucrative platform now, it is not in the best interest of the developer to put their eggs in only one basket. And markets change. So they should create demand in parallel in other devices too. But to port to other devices takes time and money, two scarce resources, as you now. One way they could be less dependent on the iPhone with minimum investment is to use a compatibility layer like Unity. Unity already works on the Wii, and will work on the Android and Xbox soon, with windows phone probably not far away. But with the new rules, that is not a solution anymore. Also, it is ironic that Unity will work on Xbox but not on the iPhone. Don't you think?

Arguably yes. Microsoft never tried to stop users from running whatever software they wanted on Windows, they just made it more inconvenient in some cases to get that software.

tptacek 17y ago

"I will use my operating system monopoly to put you out of business if you don't assist me in putting an unrelated competitor of ours out of business" is worse to you than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device"? I don't like Objective C either, but I don't take it that far.

akmiller 17y ago
Microsoft, as all companies would, is going to use their successful product(s) to push other products that they create. They had 95%+ of the OS market and simply wanted to push the use of their browser to those individuals. That doesn't and never has seemed like a dirty tactic to me. Apple pushes its own products over its competitors on the iPhone. You won't see Opera on the default dock bar on the iPhone anytime soon...it may never even be approved to be in the app store. Microsoft may have made it tough for their competition (and I'm sure they crossed the line many times as you mention) but they certainly aren't telling the folks at Mozilla now that Firefox must be re-written in .Net or they aren't going to allow it to run on their platform!
- MichaelGG 17y ago
  Well, Windows Phone 7 only allows verified CLI bytecode apps, which practically speaking means Firefox won't be compiling for it anytime soon. But MS doesn't care how you compile, just as long as the bytecode checks out safe.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    And Windows Phone 7 is not a dominant player in any segment.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  > Microsoft, as all companies would, is going to use their successful product(s) to push other products that they create Please, keep in mind that if the successful product is effectively a monopoly, then this conduct is not only immoral. It's also illegal.
skywalker 17y ago
"I will use my operating system monopoly to put you out of business if you don't assist me in putting an unrelated competitor of ours out of business" is worse to you than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device"? What about this: "I will use my mobile operating system prestige to put your mobile company out of business if you don't assist me in putting a competitor of ours, Adobe, out of the mobile app business". The word "monopoly" doesn't add much. People could develop for MacOS back then when Microsoft did that, but nobody used MacOS. Likewise, people can develop for Android now, but nobody uses android.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Sorry to be so presumptious but I don't think you've thought this through. Microsoft threatened to drive companies out of the computer industry. There are still plenty of other viable mobile platforms to develop for if the iPhone doesn't work out for you.
  - skywalker 17y ago
    What I mean is that it is much more than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device". You also haven't thought this through. It has many more long term implications than the language choice. And we have a disagreement about what viable mobile platform means. For example, "Gameloft sells 400 times more games on iPhone than it does on Android." http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/29757/gameloft-cutting-android-development-investment http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/29757/gameloft-cutting-andro... There isn't much of a mobile games market outside the iPhone. Unless you want to develop children games for the DS. And then you would need to wear a suit to sign a contract with Nintendo. And guess what, they don't sign more than X contracts a year, where X is a very low number. So you could be out of luck. The point is that if the iPhone is the most lucrative platform now, it is not in the best interest of the developer to put their eggs in only one basket. And markets change. So they should create demand in parallel in other devices too. But to port to other devices takes time and money, two scarce resources, as you now. One way they could be less dependent on the iPhone with minimum investment is to use a compatibility layer like Unity. Unity already works on the Wii, and will work on the Android and Xbox soon, with windows phone probably not far away. But with the new rules, that is not a solution anymore. Also, it is ironic that Unity will work on Xbox but not on the iPhone. Don't you think?