5 ms·

If Microsoft added a feature to Windows that duplicated a popular application's functionality, developers would be screaming bloody murder and rioting in the, e

by cstross 15y ago

If Microsoft added a feature to Windows that duplicated a popular application's functionality, developers would be screaming bloody murder and rioting in the, er, blogs and web forums Utter rot. This used to happen all the time in the 1980s and 1990s, before the DoJ anti trust lawsuit really got rolling. It was most obvious in office apps (ever wonder where the third-party spelling checkers and grammar checkers went? Or the standalone mailmerge applications? Microsoft added their functionality to Word and killed an entire add-on market at a stroke each time they did so), but a load of that stuff happened in Windows too (the graphical shell that became an OS in its own right). The most flagrant late example was web browsing; the most recent one I can think of (not being a Windows user) was their antivirus/malware add-in. (Honestly ... young 'uns these days ... wanders away mumbling into beard and waving walking stick in the air.)

tsotha 15y ago
>This used to happen all the time in the 1980s and 1990s, before the DoJ anti trust lawsuit really got rolling. Yes, and the reason for the DOJ anti-trust lawsuit? Developers were screaming bloody murder.
- latch 15y ago
  Your parent's point is that the reason Microsoft doesn't do this as much now isn't because they are more benevolent, it's because they were so over the top tyrannical that they've been forced to stop.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Not really. Microsoft really is far less evil under Ballmer than Gates. It's also less effective, less farsighted, and slower, but it is less evil.
    - 0x12 15y ago
      I think it is just as evil, just less successful at implementing the evil because Ballmer isn't half as smart as Gates was. Even evil suffers from poor execution.
      - redthrowaway 15y ago
        I dunno. They've (more or less) embraced web standards, made overtures to the OSS community with a bunch of commits to the linux kernel, and have generally been a whole lot less monopolistic. Granted, Ballmer may want to be Gates and lack the ability, but the end result is a far less scary beast.
        latch 15y ago
        generally been a whole lot less monopolistic What makes you say this is a result of Ballmer vs being told by the government to be less monopolistic?
        ZeroGravitas 15y ago
        The commits to the kernel were to make it run in their VM, even if you consider that a good thing (I'd say it's neither good nor bad) the patents they're claiming to hold on Linux, and the patronising language they use in connection with that, about people making use of their innovation is as evil as anything they used to get up to.
    - pm 15y ago
      It's just more incompetent. That's what happens when evil genius moves aside, and the henchmen take over.
- marshray 15y ago
  My sense is that that was definitely a factor, but it wasn't as much the ISVs screaming but the distributors like Dell. IIRC the things MS agreed to as part of the settlement had more to do with their "get a reasonable discount on Windows at the pleasure of the King" contracts. I.e., MS was insisting that a license be paid for every PC the vendor shipped, regardless of whether or not it was shipped with Windows.
- tptacek 15y ago
  No, the reason for the anti-trust suit was that it was impossible for the government to look past a monopoly provider of software every computer user needed using their market influence to (a) lock up the distribution channels for all personal computers and (b) use their market influence and their control of distribution channels to attempt to obtain a monopoly in the browser market. "Angry developers" enter into this in no meaningful sense. To the players actually involved in that fight, on all sides, developers were simply cogs. Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on mobile operating systems and, even if it did, it would take more than simply putting someone out of business with a new offering to put it on the wrong side of the law. It's easy to see that once a company gets as big as Apple, any new feature it builds is going to put someone out of business somewhere. (Instapaper will be fine, by the way).
0x12 15y ago
Back then every big company was doing this, or attempted to do this. The goal was to dominate the desktop and get as much grip on the end user as possible. Proprietary file formats for just about everything. Remember Desqview (by QuarterDeck)? DR DOS? GEM (also DR)? OS/2 (IBM)? NetWare (Novell)? All those companies did what Microsoft was doing with one small difference, they stopped at the OS or Desktop layer and never saw beyond that, to the applications. They saw the system as the ideal place to dominate and they set themselves up for being slaughtered. The combination of dominating two or more levels is what made it lethal, OS/GUI/Application companies aplenty back then but only one company that did them all and that used its own internal knowledge in order to make life very hard for the competition. And the final key in the lock was the Application level and nobody that made it big in the systems sphere ever got there besides Microsoft. Microsoft may have lost their anti-trust lawsuit but the damage was done and it won them the war until the web came along. If Sir Tim should be remembered for anything at all it was for breaking the stranglehold Microsoft had on personal computing, freeing us from the Application level headlock. Oh, and in my time we didn't have walking sticks.
- jodrellblank 15y ago
  But you did have conspiracy theories. Politics, idiocy, decisions from above, spec from contracts, engineering idealism, planning for things which didn't happen, technical limitations, stuck with previous design choices, inexperience... Proprietary file formats - what happens when you don't set out to make a shared format, or an evil plot for lock-in and dominance? You decide.
adabsurdo 15y ago
Well, Microsoft never set itself up as the gateway to install third-party software, or as the authority on taste and acceptable content, or on taking a cut on commercial activity taking place on its platform.
- ashishgandhi 15y ago
  Yeah, they did not do that. But that's not the only way to be responsible (consciously or not) for killing smaller developers. > authority on taste and acceptable content I don't know about that. If I want something that Apple doesn't approve for their store - say Grooveshark, for plausible legal complications in the future - I get the Grooveshark app anyway, from some other store that's legal (hint: jailbreak). Personally speaking: I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. In practice, I've never missed something on the App Store (iPad 2 that I bought a few months ago) although I miss a lot of stuff on the Android Market (Nexus One that I own since a few years now). I got an Android before I got an iOS device going by such arguments from the couch. But I'm glad I can choose my phone, and it's going to be iPhone 4S when it launches here. I'm glad you can choose your phone, I presume that'll be an Android. That way, both of us can be happy.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. Hello, apt-get and yum. Curated software doesn't have to lead to locked-down systems you can only use at the sufferance of the curators. For example, look at the processes behind Linux distros. The people who put Linux distros together have been doing this for nigh on twenty years now, with the big caveat that you don't need to 'jailbreak' a Linux machine to install your own software under /usr/local or on your home directory. Even Slackware has packages; the main thing it lacks is dependency-tracking package management. And, yes, there are filtering processes and even bug-fixing processes in place; Debian, for example, has a lot of people who more-or-less 'own' certain packages to the extent they get the source distributions from the original developers, test them, and modify them to fix bugs and bring them in line with the Debian World Order. All or practically all Debian-derived distros leverage this, Ubuntu foremost among them.
vacri 15y ago
Microsoft Security Essentials basically kills an entire industry (antivirus), however you can't really claim that scalp as it's really patching a hole in their OS security, something they should be doing for a professional product. Recently on HN there was a post saying that you shouldn't chase anything obvious and generic without expecting it to get 'filled in'. A cloud service for audio? Yep, when the big players get around to it, you're out. An imaging collation app for dentists? The big players are not going to do that.
hernan7 15y ago
Back in the 90's they also included a TCP/IP stack into Win95, which used to be a (horrible) 3rd party app on Win3.1.
- abalashov 15y ago
  Ah, good old Trumpet Winsock. :)
powertower 15y ago
You’re using trivial examples from 20+ years back. Things have changed. Microsoft has practically walked on egg shells when dealing with additional solutions/features since Windows 95 due to fears of anti-trust and also alienating developers. How long did it take them to get a s/w firewall and anti-virus solution? 10+ years after the fact. It wasn't because they couldn't figure it out. How about simple features to VS.NET that have current 3rd party add-ons? It just does not happen.

by cstross 15y ago

tsotha 15y ago

>This used to happen all the time in the 1980s and 1990s, before the DoJ anti trust lawsuit really got rolling. Yes, and the reason for the DOJ anti-trust lawsuit? Developers were screaming bloody murder.

latch 15y ago
Your parent's point is that the reason Microsoft doesn't do this as much now isn't because they are more benevolent, it's because they were so over the top tyrannical that they've been forced to stop.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Not really. Microsoft really is far less evil under Ballmer than Gates. It's also less effective, less farsighted, and slower, but it is less evil.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    I think it is just as evil, just less successful at implementing the evil because Ballmer isn't half as smart as Gates was. Even evil suffers from poor execution.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      I dunno. They've (more or less) embraced web standards, made overtures to the OSS community with a bunch of commits to the linux kernel, and have generally been a whole lot less monopolistic. Granted, Ballmer may want to be Gates and lack the ability, but the end result is a far less scary beast.
      - latch 15y ago
        generally been a whole lot less monopolistic What makes you say this is a result of Ballmer vs being told by the government to be less monopolistic?
      - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
        The commits to the kernel were to make it run in their VM, even if you consider that a good thing (I'd say it's neither good nor bad) the patents they're claiming to hold on Linux, and the patronising language they use in connection with that, about people making use of their innovation is as evil as anything they used to get up to.
  - pm 15y ago
    It's just more incompetent. That's what happens when evil genius moves aside, and the henchmen take over.
marshray 15y ago
My sense is that that was definitely a factor, but it wasn't as much the ISVs screaming but the distributors like Dell. IIRC the things MS agreed to as part of the settlement had more to do with their "get a reasonable discount on Windows at the pleasure of the King" contracts. I.e., MS was insisting that a license be paid for every PC the vendor shipped, regardless of whether or not it was shipped with Windows.
tptacek 15y ago
No, the reason for the anti-trust suit was that it was impossible for the government to look past a monopoly provider of software every computer user needed using their market influence to (a) lock up the distribution channels for all personal computers and (b) use their market influence and their control of distribution channels to attempt to obtain a monopoly in the browser market. "Angry developers" enter into this in no meaningful sense. To the players actually involved in that fight, on all sides, developers were simply cogs. Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on mobile operating systems and, even if it did, it would take more than simply putting someone out of business with a new offering to put it on the wrong side of the law. It's easy to see that once a company gets as big as Apple, any new feature it builds is going to put someone out of business somewhere. (Instapaper will be fine, by the way).

0x12 15y ago

Back then every big company was doing this, or attempted to do this. The goal was to dominate the desktop and get as much grip on the end user as possible. Proprietary file formats for just about everything. Remember Desqview (by QuarterDeck)? DR DOS? GEM (also DR)? OS/2 (IBM)? NetWare (Novell)? All those companies did what Microsoft was doing with one small difference, they stopped at the OS or Desktop layer and never saw beyond that, to the applications. They saw the system as the ideal place to dominate and they set themselves up for being slaughtered. The combination of dominating two or more levels is what made it lethal, OS/GUI/Application companies aplenty back then but only one company that did them all and that used its own internal knowledge in order to make life very hard for the competition. And the final key in the lock was the Application level and nobody that made it big in the systems sphere ever got there besides Microsoft. Microsoft may have lost their anti-trust lawsuit but the damage was done and it won them the war until the web came along. If Sir Tim should be remembered for anything at all it was for breaking the stranglehold Microsoft had on personal computing, freeing us from the Application level headlock. Oh, and in my time we didn't have walking sticks.

jodrellblank 15y ago
But you did have conspiracy theories. Politics, idiocy, decisions from above, spec from contracts, engineering idealism, planning for things which didn't happen, technical limitations, stuck with previous design choices, inexperience... Proprietary file formats - what happens when you don't set out to make a shared format, or an evil plot for lock-in and dominance? You decide.

adabsurdo 15y ago

Well, Microsoft never set itself up as the gateway to install third-party software, or as the authority on taste and acceptable content, or on taking a cut on commercial activity taking place on its platform.

ashishgandhi 15y ago
Yeah, they did not do that. But that's not the only way to be responsible (consciously or not) for killing smaller developers. > authority on taste and acceptable content I don't know about that. If I want something that Apple doesn't approve for their store - say Grooveshark, for plausible legal complications in the future - I get the Grooveshark app anyway, from some other store that's legal (hint: jailbreak). Personally speaking: I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. In practice, I've never missed something on the App Store (iPad 2 that I bought a few months ago) although I miss a lot of stuff on the Android Market (Nexus One that I own since a few years now). I got an Android before I got an iOS device going by such arguments from the couch. But I'm glad I can choose my phone, and it's going to be iPhone 4S when it launches here. I'm glad you can choose your phone, I presume that'll be an Android. That way, both of us can be happy.
- derleth 15y ago
  > I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. Hello, apt-get and yum. Curated software doesn't have to lead to locked-down systems you can only use at the sufferance of the curators. For example, look at the processes behind Linux distros. The people who put Linux distros together have been doing this for nigh on twenty years now, with the big caveat that you don't need to 'jailbreak' a Linux machine to install your own software under /usr/local or on your home directory. Even Slackware has packages; the main thing it lacks is dependency-tracking package management. And, yes, there are filtering processes and even bug-fixing processes in place; Debian, for example, has a lot of people who more-or-less 'own' certain packages to the extent they get the source distributions from the original developers, test them, and modify them to fix bugs and bring them in line with the Debian World Order. All or practically all Debian-derived distros leverage this, Ubuntu foremost among them.

vacri 15y ago

Microsoft Security Essentials basically kills an entire industry (antivirus), however you can't really claim that scalp as it's really patching a hole in their OS security, something they should be doing for a professional product. Recently on HN there was a post saying that you shouldn't chase anything obvious and generic without expecting it to get 'filled in'. A cloud service for audio? Yep, when the big players get around to it, you're out. An imaging collation app for dentists? The big players are not going to do that.

hernan7 15y ago

Back in the 90's they also included a TCP/IP stack into Win95, which used to be a (horrible) 3rd party app on Win3.1.

abalashov 15y ago
Ah, good old Trumpet Winsock. :)

powertower 15y ago

You’re using trivial examples from 20+ years back. Things have changed. Microsoft has practically walked on egg shells when dealing with additional solutions/features since Windows 95 due to fears of anti-trust and also alienating developers. How long did it take them to get a s/w firewall and anti-virus solution? 10+ years after the fact. It wasn't because they couldn't figure it out. How about simple features to VS.NET that have current 3rd party add-ons? It just does not happen.