3 ms·
I think 90s Microsoft could have something of a claim. It made a lot of sharp business choices in that decade, but it also left a LOT of money on the table for
by ethbr0 3y ago
I think 90s Microsoft could have something of a claim.
It made a lot of sharp business choices in that decade, but it also left a LOT of money on the table for developers, as part of a strategic goal to grow the platform.
Then the 00s came, platform growth slowed (because they were already running on everything desktop), and the "vs linux" decisions started coming.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoEh, I wouldn't say the say they handled the whole DR-DOS saga very reputably. And in 2001 they came to within an inch of their life in US v. Microsoft, a litigation mainly based on anticompetitive practices from the 90s. Microsoft was disreputable in the 90s to the point they were almost broken up several times.
- rascul 3y agoMicrosoft's battle against Netscape (which is also part of the show Valley of the Boom), and the Halloween documents, are two more examples.
- ethbr0 3y agoIt bleeds over into ethics at some point. Microsoft in the DOS days was still fighting hard for market. Microsoft in the Netscape days? Eh... less of a competitive claim. Post ~2005? No claim. For me, the definition of "reputable" changes when you're a competitor among equals vs when you're a monopoly.
- rascul 3y agoThey were a monopoly since the '90s.
- aio2 3y agoOkay, maybe 90s MS could've, but I have a feeling that's 30 years ago.