3 ms·
Agreed that it is a Microsoft term. But in my experience, it is older people who incorrectly judge Microsoft ruthlessness, not younger people. I am of an age wh
by bigstrat2003 2y ago
Agreed that it is a Microsoft term. But in my experience, it is older people who incorrectly judge Microsoft ruthlessness, not younger people. I am of an age where I remember well what Microsoft was like in those days, and it frankly was not as bad as people make it out to be. Nor was it really worse than the ruthless tech companies of today.
- quesera 2y agoI was there too, and I disagree completely. Microsoft was not just ruthless, they were ubiquitous. They sabotaged any perceived competitors in anticompetitive, market- and industry-damaging ways. You (the generic "you") can complain all you want about Apple today, but you have another perfectly viable option. And Apple is (almost-entirely) happy to grow market share on merits without salting the earth of any rivals. In Microsoft's heyday, that was not true. Those of us who rejected MS back then did so at a much higher cost than green chat bubbles. It was worth it though. And we did win, eventually.
- chasil 2y agoMicrosoft could not win, although they tried very hard. Windows was never going to scale down to the portable devices that we now use (because defeating Apple would have been very difficult, and AOSP made it insurmountable). Windows was never going to scale up to the top 500 supercomputer list (for largely economic reasons). Microsoft itself has tacitly admitted that Azure is better served by Linux, and we ponder why. Did the DoJ actions against Microsoft really have an impact? I don't know.
- specialist 2y ago> ...without salting the earth of any rivals. Microsoft embodied the adage "It's not enough to win. Everyone else must lose."