3 ms·
> organizations that purchased their product I wouldn't blame the victim here. Microsoft endorses CrowdStrike's product so why would they not purchase it? > o
by breadwinner 2y ago
> organizations that purchased their product
I wouldn't blame the victim here. Microsoft endorses CrowdStrike's product so why would they not purchase it?
> or, the industry pressures that necessitated it
Those "industry pressures" are under Microsoft's control.
The guy who used to run Windows division at Microsoft now says: "From now, the only strategy that is not negligence is to move critical infrastructure to mobile devices." [1] Why can't Windows be just as safe as those mobile devices? It is Microsoft's fault that it isn't.
[1] https://x.com/stevesi/status/1814711163860754564 https://x.com/stevesi/status/1814711163860754564
- iscoelho 2y agoWhat you are proposing is more complicated than it seems. For example, the Digital Markets Act in the EU is in direct contradiction to your proposition. There is a lot of people that believe locking down devices, even in the interest of security, is anti-competitive. Windows and MacOS are historically much less restrictive than any Mobile OS. I am confident that if Microsoft and Apple attempted to be more restrictive, in the interest of security, it would invite further discussion of anti-competitive behavior and subsequently antitrust. In addition, if those restrictions were damaging to a company worth >75B (CrowdStrike). I too wish it were different, but the cat is out of the bag.