3 ms·

>> What is the analogy here? Microsoft wants to embrace and extend... compiling software? and will kill off... existing ways of compiling software? How will thi

>> What is the analogy here? Microsoft wants to embrace and extend... compiling software? and will kill off... existing ways of compiling software? How will this work? Microsoft is embracing free development tools that compete with purchased tools they sold. SourceSafe vs Git, Eclipse vs Visual Studio.. those are terrible examples but you get what I mean. So you make a free tier of VS, you buy git hub etc. Extend.. you try to make your tools as ubiquitous as possible. You convince hobbyists and students that they should use your platform because it is more powerful /useful.. it will help you get a job later. This part of the strategy seems really hard because there are so many development tools that are open source, and lots of companies like IBM, Oracle, Google want to keep one of their own safely under their control. Extinguish. You add features that only really work on your platform, or work better. Think about trying to develop for Android not on Android Studio. I haven't used VS for a Windows project in a long time but I assume it has similar advantages. Or Intel's compilers used to be the first to work with new instructions. Ideally people would "have" to use your platform and you can start taxing them for that, either with fees or requirements that they implement your initiatives. Think about Google pushing Kotlin.. Android Studio kind of defaults to that now. Of how it supports Firebase, or defaults new projects in segments. I am not mad about that it or anything, it may just be a good idea. But it shows how if you control the dominant tech platform you can support your initiatives. This isn't something that keeps me awake at night because a number of tech companies are working to promote their own semi-proprietary or open development platforms. But the fact that so many go to the trouble to do that shows it is a concern.

geofft 5y ago
I understand how EEE is supposed to work. My claim is that it doesn't actually work, at least not for this use case. So for my argument, SourceSafe vs. Git is a great example. :-) You simply can't keep up with a proprietary tool that does its own stuff. You have to use Git. Microsoft tried having a custom version of Git for Windows OS development, and decided that they weren't even able to get themselves to fall for the trap - they ended up getting involved in upstream Git development and turning all their extensions into standard features. There are definitely cases where if you control the platform you can control what people are doing. I'm arguing that Microsoft has no actual effective control of the platform here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- didibus 5y ago
  EEE doesn't have to work to be considered anti-competitive. The intent is nefarious, it's trying to attract people by offering a veneer of good grace and good intentions, only to capitalize on it once you've attracted a strong enough user base that you can get away with closing things down, squeezing things in, and calling the shots. So it be great if their proprietary remote extensions fail and they are forced to open-source them and make them a standard, but clearly the intent right now is that they don't fail and it gives them a leverage over their competitors.

geofft 5y ago

I understand how EEE is supposed to work. My claim is that it doesn't actually work, at least not for this use case. So for my argument, SourceSafe vs. Git is a great example. :-) You simply can't keep up with a proprietary tool that does its own stuff. You have to use Git. Microsoft tried having a custom version of Git for Windows OS development, and decided that they weren't even able to get themselves to fall for the trap - they ended up getting involved in upstream Git development and turning all their extensions into standard features. There are definitely cases where if you control the platform you can control what people are doing. I'm arguing that Microsoft has no actual effective control of the platform here.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
didibus 5y ago
EEE doesn't have to work to be considered anti-competitive. The intent is nefarious, it's trying to attract people by offering a veneer of good grace and good intentions, only to capitalize on it once you've attracted a strong enough user base that you can get away with closing things down, squeezing things in, and calling the shots. So it be great if their proprietary remote extensions fail and they are forced to open-source them and make them a standard, but clearly the intent right now is that they don't fail and it gives them a leverage over their competitors.