22 ms·

> I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or not, but there is no "new" Microsoft. Their sole aim is to use all means to crush competition; Show me a business that doesn'

> I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or not, but there is no "new" Microsoft. Their sole aim is to use all means to crush competition; Show me a business that doesn't want to win, and I'll show you a business that's not long for this world.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
That's a fair comment. Most older software companies have disappeared, and the existing ones got so big they tend to misbehave in a similar way (e.g. Adobe). Many of the smaller guys were crushed by Microsoft using its unique position, very often by FUD and other unfair actions. I prefer to support companies that have a moral backbone and criticize those who don't.
- mschaef 9y ago
  > I prefer to support companies that have a moral backbone and criticize those who don't. What are some of the companies with a moral backbone that you support? I'm genuinely interested to see what that business model looks like in the real world. My own take on Microsoft's historical success in the 80's and 90's is that it's a combination of producing a product people wanted at a time people wanted it (and lack of well formed competition). A state of the art PC in 1991 required separately purchasing an OS, GUI, memory manager, shell, file system utilities, browser, etc. So... while you might argue that it was anticompetitive of Microsoft to bundle these together, there's never been a huge demand for the ability to buy them separately. (Even before Microsoft started bundling all these parts together, the system vendors like Gateway, Micron, and Zeos were doing the bundling for them.)
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    > What are some of the companies with a moral backbone that you support? I'm genuinely interested to see what that business model looks like in the real world. Out of software companies that survived, Autodesk for example. Most hardware companies - except printer vendors trying to patent/restrict availability of ink cartridges etc. Really, I think it's important to discriminate between fair and unfair business practices. Lumping everything together as "business is business" is harmful to the society especially in the long run.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

That's a fair comment. Most older software companies have disappeared, and the existing ones got so big they tend to misbehave in a similar way (e.g. Adobe). Many of the smaller guys were crushed by Microsoft using its unique position, very often by FUD and other unfair actions. I prefer to support companies that have a moral backbone and criticize those who don't.

mschaef 9y ago
> I prefer to support companies that have a moral backbone and criticize those who don't. What are some of the companies with a moral backbone that you support? I'm genuinely interested to see what that business model looks like in the real world. My own take on Microsoft's historical success in the 80's and 90's is that it's a combination of producing a product people wanted at a time people wanted it (and lack of well formed competition). A state of the art PC in 1991 required separately purchasing an OS, GUI, memory manager, shell, file system utilities, browser, etc. So... while you might argue that it was anticompetitive of Microsoft to bundle these together, there's never been a huge demand for the ability to buy them separately. (Even before Microsoft started bundling all these parts together, the system vendors like Gateway, Micron, and Zeos were doing the bundling for them.)
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  > What are some of the companies with a moral backbone that you support? I'm genuinely interested to see what that business model looks like in the real world. Out of software companies that survived, Autodesk for example. Most hardware companies - except printer vendors trying to patent/restrict availability of ink cartridges etc. Really, I think it's important to discriminate between fair and unfair business practices. Lumping everything together as "business is business" is harmful to the society especially in the long run.