4 ms·

>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 laws

• 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).