3 ms·
What happened to AppGet is not what embrace, extend, extinguish means. This strategy refers to writing software compatible with existing dominant software surr
by bcrosby95 6y ago
What happened to AppGet is not what embrace, extend, extinguish means. This strategy refers to writing software compatible with existing dominant software surrounding some shared interop (e.g. a file format they can both read, web standards they both implement, a networking protocol so they can communicate with eachother, etc), gaining market dominance, then making your once compatible software incompatible. Absolutely none of this happened with AppGet.
- macspoofing 6y agoYeah, that's exactly what I had in mind. Microsoft had a very specific modus operandi in their bad old days, that was different then what they did with AppGet. Here they basically acted like a regular big company trampling over a small company. You'd be hard-pressed to find any big company that hasn't done that. I remember, for example, when Google created 'Go' lang, they didn't care that there was an existing programming language named 'Go!'[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_(programming_language)#Conflict_with_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_(programming_language)#Con...
- servilio 6y agoThough I agree that this is not an example of EEE, it is still very similar to behaviour from the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...
- macspoofing 6y agoKind of. The difference is that AppGet is open source with no patents - so what they did was legal and, you might say, within ethical boundaries (except for the way they treated Keivan by stringing him along and then ghosting him) - though I could be persuaded that it isn't ethical for a trillion-dollar company to simply copy an existing open-source project, without some sort of voluntary compensation.