5 ms·

I work for MS but don't know anything about the bidding process. I was a little surprised we won, but now it makes sense. I feel like even if they can't get the

I work for MS but don't know anything about the bidding process. I was a little surprised we won, but now it makes sense. I feel like even if they can't get the DoD to let them re-bid now that they have proprietary information on us and our bid, they'll tie us up in court as long as they can to keep us from successfully delivering. They want to maintain the head start they made with GovCloud as long as possible and keep other companies out. Icky.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> They want to maintain the head start they made with GovCloud as long as possible and keep other companies out. Icky. I'm not picking on you as an individual, but there's great justice in Microsoft suffering this.
alasdair_ 7y ago
I agree, it’s terribly unfair when companies use their dominant market position to crowd out would-be entrants.
- sharemywin 7y ago
  I'm confused which company are you referring to? oh, wait every dominant giant company ever...
  - keeganpoppen 7y ago
    oh, ^please^... not "every dominant giant company ever" has been found by U.S. federal court to have engaged in monopolistic / anti-competitive behavior. legality aside, that's to say nothing of all their no-walter-its-not-illegal-youre-just-an-asshole shenanigans contemporaneous with, and preceding, the lawsuit. playing dumb and conflating what Microsoft did with "every dominant giant company ever" only serves to whitewash a (well-deserved) reputation that they themselves have had to work to disavow (both in word, publically, and in deed) for years. incidentally, this feels quite similar to how the Bill Gates Foundation whitewashes its eponymous benefactor's legacy having been the driving force behind said ruthlessness.* * please don't make me put in a disclaimer about how people / companies can change, etc.-- we all know-- this is about preserving the past, not casting aspersions on these entities in the present
    - mrkramer 7y ago
      What Microsoft did with Internet Explorer maybe looked dirty back in the day but ironically enough United States v. Microsoft Corp. suit started in 1998, the same year when Google was founded and quickly after conquered the internet with its search engine and internet browser. Innovations will always displace dominant products and the cycle goes on and on.
      - CPLX 7y ago
        There’s a strong argument to be made that putting MS on the defensive about antitrust in the late 90’s is the reason so many other dominant tech companies were able to get a foothold in the 5-10 years following. Which also points to why we are in today’s predicament, having abandoned antitrust entirely.
      - jamessb 7y ago
        > founded and quickly after conquered the internet with its search engine and internet browser Google didn't release the first version of Chrome until 2008, 10 years later.
      - erpellan 7y ago
        That is nowhere close to how ruthlessly they crushed competitors well before that. Microsoft are why you've probably never heard of Supercalc, Lotus/123 and WordPerfect. All superior products in the 80s and 90s, all crushed by MS strong-arm tactics of forcing PC manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and Office pre-installed. They even destroyed companies they weren't even competing with, but thought they _might_ want to later! All MS needed to do was issue a vague press release that they were working on a competitor to [some successful software product] and all the customers would hold off on purchases until the original (successful) company went bankrupt. Many times MS never ever released anything, leaving everyone worse off. So yeah. They seem nicer now, but they climbed over a lot of dead companies to get here.
    - close04 7y ago
      > not "every dominant giant company ever" has been found by U.S. federal court That's only because as times changed so did the US mostly lost interest in punishing or even investigating its own companies (that's subjectively understandable, nobody wants to hit their own). Voices say they're trying to change this, we'll just have to wait and see. On the other hand I'm sure you agree that "U.S. federal court" is not the global standard in justice. And since the EU has no "home player" bias their courts did not shy away from investigating and fining big-tech monopolies like Google or Facebook. "Playing dumb" and conflating Microsoft with exclusivity in the abuse of market position doesn't do this discussion any service. Your comment is strongly undermined by this clear bias.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

> They want to maintain the head start they made with GovCloud as long as possible and keep other companies out. Icky. I'm not picking on you as an individual, but there's great justice in Microsoft suffering this.

alasdair_ 7y ago

I agree, it’s terribly unfair when companies use their dominant market position to crowd out would-be entrants.

sharemywin 7y ago
I'm confused which company are you referring to? oh, wait every dominant giant company ever...
- keeganpoppen 7y ago
  oh, ^please^... not "every dominant giant company ever" has been found by U.S. federal court to have engaged in monopolistic / anti-competitive behavior. legality aside, that's to say nothing of all their no-walter-its-not-illegal-youre-just-an-asshole shenanigans contemporaneous with, and preceding, the lawsuit. playing dumb and conflating what Microsoft did with "every dominant giant company ever" only serves to whitewash a (well-deserved) reputation that they themselves have had to work to disavow (both in word, publically, and in deed) for years. incidentally, this feels quite similar to how the Bill Gates Foundation whitewashes its eponymous benefactor's legacy having been the driving force behind said ruthlessness.* * please don't make me put in a disclaimer about how people / companies can change, etc.-- we all know-- this is about preserving the past, not casting aspersions on these entities in the present
  - mrkramer 7y ago
    What Microsoft did with Internet Explorer maybe looked dirty back in the day but ironically enough United States v. Microsoft Corp. suit started in 1998, the same year when Google was founded and quickly after conquered the internet with its search engine and internet browser. Innovations will always displace dominant products and the cycle goes on and on.
    - CPLX 7y ago
      There’s a strong argument to be made that putting MS on the defensive about antitrust in the late 90’s is the reason so many other dominant tech companies were able to get a foothold in the 5-10 years following. Which also points to why we are in today’s predicament, having abandoned antitrust entirely.
    - jamessb 7y ago
      > founded and quickly after conquered the internet with its search engine and internet browser Google didn't release the first version of Chrome until 2008, 10 years later.
    - erpellan 7y ago
      That is nowhere close to how ruthlessly they crushed competitors well before that. Microsoft are why you've probably never heard of Supercalc, Lotus/123 and WordPerfect. All superior products in the 80s and 90s, all crushed by MS strong-arm tactics of forcing PC manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and Office pre-installed. They even destroyed companies they weren't even competing with, but thought they _might_ want to later! All MS needed to do was issue a vague press release that they were working on a competitor to [some successful software product] and all the customers would hold off on purchases until the original (successful) company went bankrupt. Many times MS never ever released anything, leaving everyone worse off. So yeah. They seem nicer now, but they climbed over a lot of dead companies to get here.
  - close04 7y ago
    > not "every dominant giant company ever" has been found by U.S. federal court That's only because as times changed so did the US mostly lost interest in punishing or even investigating its own companies (that's subjectively understandable, nobody wants to hit their own). Voices say they're trying to change this, we'll just have to wait and see. On the other hand I'm sure you agree that "U.S. federal court" is not the global standard in justice. And since the EU has no "home player" bias their courts did not shy away from investigating and fining big-tech monopolies like Google or Facebook. "Playing dumb" and conflating Microsoft with exclusivity in the abuse of market position doesn't do this discussion any service. Your comment is strongly undermined by this clear bias.