5 ms·

Remember Microsoft's anti-trust lawsuit came about in the 90's - so we have to go back in time and look at what Microsoft was doing back then to prompt this law

Remember Microsoft's anti-trust lawsuit came about in the 90's - so we have to go back in time and look at what Microsoft was doing back then to prompt this lawsuit. For starters, Microsoft relied heavily on undocumented APIs in both DOS and Windows for their own applications, e.g. Office. When others such as Borland, Lotus, or Word Perfect attempted to reverse-engineer and utilize those APIs in their own applications they'd be broken in the next release. Microsoft would change the undocumented APIs so their competitors would no longer work and release a new release of Office concurrent with the next release of DOS/Windows. Guess what happened as a result? You don't hear of Borland, Lotus or Word Perfect anymore, do you? There were still more dastardly deeds up Microsoft's sleeve. Ever wonder why OS/2 didn't leave Microsoft's Windows in the dust? Or why Linux never became a viable option? Read on. When Windows 3.0 was released in 1990 it took the world by storm. Everybody, and I mean everybody, wanted it. PC makers (HP, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, et. al.) wanted to provide PC's with Windows preinstalled. Microsoft used that to their advantage. They would provide Windows licensing to the PC makers at substantially reduced cost on ONE condition: they could not preinstall any other competitor's OS. Oh and one more thing - EVERY SINGLE machine shipped would have to include a license for Windows. What does that mean? If you wanted to run OS/2 on your Compaq then you will have paid Microsoft for the Windows license you're not going to use AND you're still going to have to pay IBM for OS/2 AND you're going to have to install it yourself - Compaq wasn't allowed to preinstall it for you and still be able to distribute Windows. Pretty bad, no? Get this - in federal court Microsoft argued these practices were legal because they were not a monopoly. They pointed to Apple as their viable competitor. At the time Apple had 2% of the PC market and was on the verge of bankruptcy. The judge noted that Apple wasn't really a healthy, viable competitor and ordered Microsoft to pay Apple several hundred million dollars (this seems to be confused in the press, apparently at the time the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit was proceeding there was another case where Microsoft and Intel were caught red-handed stealing video codec IP from Apple and were ordered to pay a large infringement settlement). Either way, Microsoft was forced to pay Apple hundreds of millions of dollars. So yes, Microsoft was more obnoxious in their anti-competitive practices and the courts allowed them to carry on with those practices for the price of a few hundred million dollars paid out to Apple. By comparison Apple looks like darling little Angels compared to the Microsoft of the Gates and Ballmer eras.

wayneftw 6y ago
I lived through Microsoft' anti-trust suit and I remember exactly what restrictions were placed on PC enthusiasts at the time because I was one. Guess what? They never restricted me personally from doing a damn thing. > ...Microsoft relied heavily on undocumented APIs in both DOS and Windows for their own applications... And Apple doesn't? Oh good! Where's the API that I can use to replace their app store app? How about Safari? And where's the alternative browser that can implement PWAs for iOS like Safari does? Where's my API to stop the phone from charging at a certain percentage like Apple does with their smart case software? > Ever wonder why OS/2 didn't leave Microsoft's Windows in the dust? Nope. OS/2 was utter garbage from a company that was already a dinosaur at that time. > Or why Linux never became a viable option? You mean those RedHat servers I was maintaining back in 1999 didn't really exist? I'd been experimenting with Linux desktops since the early 2000's and they've always been viable. Heck, a quarter of all the devs that respond to Stack Overflow's survey year after year use it - the same percentage that use a Mac. Personally, I've been doing all my work from a Manjaro desktop for years now. > PC makers (HP, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, et. al.) wanted to provide PC's with Windows preinstalled. Not my problem. As a consumer, I was never restricted. I'd absolutely love it if Apple would only mess with other OEMs and let me do whatever I wanted to with my iPhone like Microsoft used to let me do with my PC. > ...you will have paid Microsoft for the Windows license... Apple is much more insidious. They don't even give you the option at all to run an alternative because they built their entire house on locked down, undocumented hardware. > in federal court Microsoft...Apple...Intel...stealing from each other... Again, I missed the part where I was restricted from doing what I wanted to with my own hardware. What does it matter to me if 2 titans want to duke it out? In the end, nothing that Microsoft was doing ever caused me any grief. Apple on the other hand... > By comparison Apple looks like darling little Angels... Quite the opposite. Apple has not only stolen from competitors just like Microsoft, they've stolen directly from enthusiasts who built apps for Mac and iOS multiple times and then kicked them off the platform. They very name of the iPhone was already trademarked by Cisco and Apple just went ahead and used it. They couldn't even build their own kernel or base platform like Microsoft did, they had to Tivoize BSD. Apple is well known for stealing from enthusiasts. [0] There's an overwhelming amount of evidence for this. [1] Apple is the worst thing that's ever happened to computing. I'd take the Microsoft of the 90s any day over the Apple of today. They're taking away your control over your own computing devices and people on HN have the audacity to defend them for it. People that like Big Brother so much should honestly just move to China because that's the future that Apple wants for you. They want to own and control everything. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side here. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-apple-uses-its-app-store-copy-best-ideas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-app... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+steals+apps https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+steals+apps

wayneftw 6y ago

I lived through Microsoft' anti-trust suit and I remember exactly what restrictions were placed on PC enthusiasts at the time because I was one. Guess what? They never restricted me personally from doing a damn thing. > ...Microsoft relied heavily on undocumented APIs in both DOS and Windows for their own applications... And Apple doesn't? Oh good! Where's the API that I can use to replace their app store app? How about Safari? And where's the alternative browser that can implement PWAs for iOS like Safari does? Where's my API to stop the phone from charging at a certain percentage like Apple does with their smart case software? > Ever wonder why OS/2 didn't leave Microsoft's Windows in the dust? Nope. OS/2 was utter garbage from a company that was already a dinosaur at that time. > Or why Linux never became a viable option? You mean those RedHat servers I was maintaining back in 1999 didn't really exist? I'd been experimenting with Linux desktops since the early 2000's and they've always been viable. Heck, a quarter of all the devs that respond to Stack Overflow's survey year after year use it - the same percentage that use a Mac. Personally, I've been doing all my work from a Manjaro desktop for years now. > PC makers (HP, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, et. al.) wanted to provide PC's with Windows preinstalled. Not my problem. As a consumer, I was never restricted. I'd absolutely love it if Apple would only mess with other OEMs and let me do whatever I wanted to with my iPhone like Microsoft used to let me do with my PC. > ...you will have paid Microsoft for the Windows license... Apple is much more insidious. They don't even give you the option at all to run an alternative because they built their entire house on locked down, undocumented hardware. > in federal court Microsoft...Apple...Intel...stealing from each other... Again, I missed the part where I was restricted from doing what I wanted to with my own hardware. What does it matter to me if 2 titans want to duke it out? In the end, nothing that Microsoft was doing ever caused me any grief. Apple on the other hand... > By comparison Apple looks like darling little Angels... Quite the opposite. Apple has not only stolen from competitors just like Microsoft, they've stolen directly from enthusiasts who built apps for Mac and iOS multiple times and then kicked them off the platform. They very name of the iPhone was already trademarked by Cisco and Apple just went ahead and used it. They couldn't even build their own kernel or base platform like Microsoft did, they had to Tivoize BSD. Apple is well known for stealing from enthusiasts. [0] There's an overwhelming amount of evidence for this. [1] Apple is the worst thing that's ever happened to computing. I'd take the Microsoft of the 90s any day over the Apple of today. They're taking away your control over your own computing devices and people on HN have the audacity to defend them for it. People that like Big Brother so much should honestly just move to China because that's the future that Apple wants for you. They want to own and control everything. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side here. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-apple-uses-its-app-store-copy-best-ideas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-app... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+steals+apps https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+steals+apps