4 ms·

> As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the m

> As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost. This was actually central to the DOJ antitrust case against Microsoft. As part of the settlement, Microsoft had to agree to allow OEMs to keep installing crapware [1]. It's things like this that make me a little nervous when people say that going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer. [1] https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/1274453172665253890 https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/1274453172665253890

haram_masala 6y ago
Matt Stoller’s “Big” includes an interesting (though flawed) history of how anti-monopoly efforts have often been sacrificed for the good of the consumer. Which arguably was a short-term good.
- mav3rick 6y ago
  Yes, a bunch of DOJ lawyers who barely know tech will decide the good of tech.
fossuser 6y ago
If I had to guess (without reading the case specifically), it's probably because Microsoft screwed up by forcing OEMs to not install netscape in order to crush them. It's hard to differentiate 'crapware' from competition, particularly given the context where Microsoft had just leveraged their power over OEMs to crush a competitor. This still sucks though, a better outcome for users would have been Microsoft being able to require the machines to sell with a clean OS and then allowing OEMs to install software for the user at their request (rather than the OEMs being able to bundle crap for kickbacks). Somewhat related, apparently the netscape guys went to Redmond and hung up signs around Microsoft's campus mocking them for ignoring the internet. Legend has it Gates saw these and pivoted teams to IE with a focus on crushing Netscape. Startup talk often discusses how most startups fail not due to competition, but because of internal collapse. Big companies can't compete, innovator's dilemma, etc. There's a lot of truth to that but this is a counter example (and others exist too). Wildly stupid to antagonize the elephant that's focused on other things to direct all of their resources to destroying you.
- adventured 6y ago
  > it's probably because Microsoft screwed up by forcing OEMs to not install netscape in order to crush them. The matter predated the IE / Netscape battle. The OEMs wanted the ability to yield money off of the desktop for the systems they sell and had been fighting with Microsoft for years to be able to place crap onto Windows when it boots up. The system makers saw dollar signs in being able to sell placement to AOL dial-up and so on. Microsoft used their position to try to keep them from doing that, fearing an inability to control quality for their own product from the first moment the end user begins their experience.
  - latch 6y ago
    This seems revisionist, and while Sinofsky obviously has some authority on the subject, he likely also has a bias. The antitrust case was brought by the states because Microsoft's behavior "was not in the public interest." As far as I know, it wasn't just 1 thing. It was the exclusionary licensing (OEMs were forced to pay an "MS Tax" even when they shipped a Linux computer), it was the bundling of IE, and it was their manipulation of their APIs to favor their software. Plus there was the EU antitrust case that had nothing to do with OEMs. It's also worth noting that Microsoft defense was...awful? They falsified evidence, they were belligerent/petty. Gates was a particular train wreck (1) (1) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/revisiting-the-spectacular-failure-that-was-the-bill-gates-deposition/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/revisiting-the-s...
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I always enjoyed the cake tradition: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/06/the-cake-is-a-lie-ie-team-bakes-a-treat-for-mozilla/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/06/the-c...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kibwen 6y ago
It's a bit naive to think that Microsoft's argument there wasn't just them grasping at straws at any attempt to avoid anti-trust regulation. History has shown that Microsoft themselves would happily jump at the chance to stuff their own pockets by pre-installing crapware on your computer, as evidenced by all the junk and ads on even fresh installs of modern Windows. Remember the Candy Crush auto-install debacle? https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-steer-clear-of-windows-10s-built-in-crapware/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-steer-clear-of-windows-...
- criley2 6y ago
  I mean, what Microsoft did pales in comparison to Apple's standard business model. How many third party apps have been driven out of business by Apple's preferred first party copy? We still cannot run anything but Safari (or an older, less-featured, reskinned Safari) on iOS. Anti-trust is a joke and holding Microsoft accountable for 1/10th of today's standard operating procedure was ridiculous.
  - kibwen 6y ago
    Anti-trust is only a joke in the sense that it doesn't get wielded enough. No more of these enormous companies forming unaccountable pseudo-governments of their own. Break them up and let the fragments enliven the market with their revitalized sense of competition. Then, when a victor emerges fat and complacent, break them up again and begin the cycle anew.
  - toast0 6y ago
    Apple's market share also pales in comparison with Microsoft's. I'm pretty sure Apple never made anyone selling an iPhone pay them for an iOS license on all the phones they sell. That's not to say Apple's conduct isn't egregious, but the context isn't the same either.
    - franga2000 6y ago
      > I'm pretty sure Apple never made anyone selling an iPhone pay them for an iOS license on all the phones they sell. That's a wildly different situation. Of course Microsoft charges hardware vendors for Windows licenses - we have to pay for them too! Windows is Microsoft's main product - should they be giving away licenses to vendors?!? (I'm ignoring the underlying issue of sell vs produce here, because it's such a clear fallacy it's not even worth explaining)
Razengan 6y ago
> It's things like this that make me a little suspicious when people say that going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer. This is what we see coming from a mile away when people (usually user-hostile devs) clamor for the App Store to be broken up etc.
franga2000 6y ago
Microsoft installs plenty of their own crapware, so even if they had won that part of the lawsuit, our computers would still be full of it. And I don't think antitrust is supposed to always benefit the consumers, it seems more designed to help the market through competition. But more competition means less compatibility, so we'd just end up with 20 shitty walled-gardens of services instead of 3 good ones. What we need it competition and cooperation, but the market was simply not designed to allow that. Especially Google's business model of giving away free services to grow their monopoly, then making money off of their data, would not be able to survive. That sounds like a benefit on paper, but most people would consider not getting free Google services a huge problem. That being said, I still support it. I don't care about the short-term slight negative impacts if it means we rid ourselves of these invasive companies and get at least some semblance of control over our tech.
kalleboo 6y ago
> going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer. I believe in US antitrust law, better for the customer => lower prices. And installing crapware on laptops means lower prices. The theory would be that if anyone actually wanted crapware-free laptops, there's nothing stopping any manufacturer from selling them. It's a problem for a market. I think it would be a bad idea to let courts decide what "product quality" is for something like that

haram_masala 6y ago

Matt Stoller’s “Big” includes an interesting (though flawed) history of how anti-monopoly efforts have often been sacrificed for the good of the consumer. Which arguably was a short-term good.

mav3rick 6y ago
Yes, a bunch of DOJ lawyers who barely know tech will decide the good of tech.

fossuser 6y ago

If I had to guess (without reading the case specifically), it's probably because Microsoft screwed up by forcing OEMs to not install netscape in order to crush them. It's hard to differentiate 'crapware' from competition, particularly given the context where Microsoft had just leveraged their power over OEMs to crush a competitor. This still sucks though, a better outcome for users would have been Microsoft being able to require the machines to sell with a clean OS and then allowing OEMs to install software for the user at their request (rather than the OEMs being able to bundle crap for kickbacks). Somewhat related, apparently the netscape guys went to Redmond and hung up signs around Microsoft's campus mocking them for ignoring the internet. Legend has it Gates saw these and pivoted teams to IE with a focus on crushing Netscape. Startup talk often discusses how most startups fail not due to competition, but because of internal collapse. Big companies can't compete, innovator's dilemma, etc. There's a lot of truth to that but this is a counter example (and others exist too). Wildly stupid to antagonize the elephant that's focused on other things to direct all of their resources to destroying you.

adventured 6y ago
> it's probably because Microsoft screwed up by forcing OEMs to not install netscape in order to crush them. The matter predated the IE / Netscape battle. The OEMs wanted the ability to yield money off of the desktop for the systems they sell and had been fighting with Microsoft for years to be able to place crap onto Windows when it boots up. The system makers saw dollar signs in being able to sell placement to AOL dial-up and so on. Microsoft used their position to try to keep them from doing that, fearing an inability to control quality for their own product from the first moment the end user begins their experience.
- latch 6y ago
  This seems revisionist, and while Sinofsky obviously has some authority on the subject, he likely also has a bias. The antitrust case was brought by the states because Microsoft's behavior "was not in the public interest." As far as I know, it wasn't just 1 thing. It was the exclusionary licensing (OEMs were forced to pay an "MS Tax" even when they shipped a Linux computer), it was the bundling of IE, and it was their manipulation of their APIs to favor their software. Plus there was the EU antitrust case that had nothing to do with OEMs. It's also worth noting that Microsoft defense was...awful? They falsified evidence, they were belligerent/petty. Gates was a particular train wreck (1) (1) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/revisiting-the-spectacular-failure-that-was-the-bill-gates-deposition/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/revisiting-the-s...
sokoloff 6y ago
I always enjoyed the cake tradition: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/06/the-cake-is-a-lie-ie-team-bakes-a-treat-for-mozilla/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/06/the-c...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kibwen 6y ago

It's a bit naive to think that Microsoft's argument there wasn't just them grasping at straws at any attempt to avoid anti-trust regulation. History has shown that Microsoft themselves would happily jump at the chance to stuff their own pockets by pre-installing crapware on your computer, as evidenced by all the junk and ads on even fresh installs of modern Windows. Remember the Candy Crush auto-install debacle? https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-steer-clear-of-windows-10s-built-in-crapware/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-steer-clear-of-windows-...

criley2 6y ago
I mean, what Microsoft did pales in comparison to Apple's standard business model. How many third party apps have been driven out of business by Apple's preferred first party copy? We still cannot run anything but Safari (or an older, less-featured, reskinned Safari) on iOS. Anti-trust is a joke and holding Microsoft accountable for 1/10th of today's standard operating procedure was ridiculous.
- kibwen 6y ago
  Anti-trust is only a joke in the sense that it doesn't get wielded enough. No more of these enormous companies forming unaccountable pseudo-governments of their own. Break them up and let the fragments enliven the market with their revitalized sense of competition. Then, when a victor emerges fat and complacent, break them up again and begin the cycle anew.
- toast0 6y ago
  Apple's market share also pales in comparison with Microsoft's. I'm pretty sure Apple never made anyone selling an iPhone pay them for an iOS license on all the phones they sell. That's not to say Apple's conduct isn't egregious, but the context isn't the same either.
  - franga2000 6y ago
    > I'm pretty sure Apple never made anyone selling an iPhone pay them for an iOS license on all the phones they sell. That's a wildly different situation. Of course Microsoft charges hardware vendors for Windows licenses - we have to pay for them too! Windows is Microsoft's main product - should they be giving away licenses to vendors?!? (I'm ignoring the underlying issue of sell vs produce here, because it's such a clear fallacy it's not even worth explaining)

Razengan 6y ago

> It's things like this that make me a little suspicious when people say that going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer. This is what we see coming from a mile away when people (usually user-hostile devs) clamor for the App Store to be broken up etc.

franga2000 6y ago

Microsoft installs plenty of their own crapware, so even if they had won that part of the lawsuit, our computers would still be full of it. And I don't think antitrust is supposed to always benefit the consumers, it seems more designed to help the market through competition. But more competition means less compatibility, so we'd just end up with 20 shitty walled-gardens of services instead of 3 good ones. What we need it competition and cooperation, but the market was simply not designed to allow that. Especially Google's business model of giving away free services to grow their monopoly, then making money off of their data, would not be able to survive. That sounds like a benefit on paper, but most people would consider not getting free Google services a huge problem. That being said, I still support it. I don't care about the short-term slight negative impacts if it means we rid ourselves of these invasive companies and get at least some semblance of control over our tech.

kalleboo 6y ago

> going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer. I believe in US antitrust law, better for the customer => lower prices. And installing crapware on laptops means lower prices. The theory would be that if anyone actually wanted crapware-free laptops, there's nothing stopping any manufacturer from selling them. It's a problem for a market. I think it would be a bad idea to let courts decide what "product quality" is for something like that