3 ms·

Only because Microsoft got slapped on the wrist way back when. Google should get slapped too, and they might be headed that way... https://www.npr.org/2025/04

Only because Microsoft got slapped on the wrist way back when. Google should get slapped too, and they might be headed that way... https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/nx-s1-5367750/google-breakup-antirust-trial-remedy-phase https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/nx-s1-5367750/google-breakup-... Safari is also pretty user-hostile, which is why Apple is getting sued by the DOJ for purposely hobbling Safari while forbidding any other browser engine on IOS. They did this so that developers are forced to write native apps, which allows Apple to skim 30% off any purchase made through an app.

userbinator 1y ago
There's a huge difference between antitrust concerns, and mass surveillance and anti-user hostility. MS' business back then was to sell software, not monetise users.
- leptons 1y ago
  You don't think Microsoft is doing mass surveillance? They own Outlook and Teams, and Windows 11 is quickly turning into a platform for training AI on your data. I doubt Edge is going to be much different. It's the reason I'm switching to Linux.
  - userbinator 1y ago
    They started going down that route many years ago now (Windows 10 "telemetry" being a critical inflection point), but the Microsoft of the 80s and 90s and even early 2000s was not about mass surveillance but selling software.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      Perhaps you’re right, but by the time Microsoft acquired Hotmail in 1997, MSN was already two years old and had its own dialup service. Microsoft knew what they were doing.
      - twilo 1y ago
        Yes but like the post above says MS didn’t start to “monetize” their users until the 2000s and it was mainly because Google set up that beautiful business model… on top of Microsoft’s platform (Windows) which makes the whole thing really funny
        TeMPOraL 1y ago
        The irony may be much stronger than that; I'd go as far as suggesting that Microsoft went for that business model because of the antitrust case.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        It seems like a modern truism: There is no such thing as an anti-war movie, because anti-war imagery is the same imagery that pro-war films use, it’s just the interpretation and meanings are reversed. Might it also be true, that there is no such thing as effective antitrust enforcement, because the one doing the investigating and enforcement is unwilling or unable to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, because their own employer’s budget and state apparatus directly and indirectly relies upon taxing golden eggs. Perhaps we’re all just carrying water for giants and giant-collaborators, whether or not giants even exist.
        TeMPOraL 1y ago
        I didn't imply foul play. I never studied the details and I actually like a bit of vertical integration in tech (but not like Apple does it), so I don't have strong views about that case - but even assuming Microsoft really was in the wrong here and were justly told to stop, what I'm much more sure of is, advertising-based business models are worse, but also this was not obvious at the time. Still isn't to many. And so when Microsoft could not make money doing a bad thing, that became illegal, they turned to an even worse thing that wasn't (and still isn't) illegal.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
JimDabell 1y ago
> Apple is getting sued by the DOJ for purposely hobbling Safari I don’t believe the lawsuit claims this, does it? > which allows Apple to skim 30% off any purchase made through an app. This is untrue. - Most developers pay 15% for in-app purchases. Only the tiny proportion of developers earning more than a million dollars a year pay 30% and even then, it’s 15% for subscriptions after the first year. - This is not any purchase made through an app. This only applies to digital goods and services.

userbinator 1y ago

There's a huge difference between antitrust concerns, and mass surveillance and anti-user hostility. MS' business back then was to sell software, not monetise users.

leptons 1y ago
You don't think Microsoft is doing mass surveillance? They own Outlook and Teams, and Windows 11 is quickly turning into a platform for training AI on your data. I doubt Edge is going to be much different. It's the reason I'm switching to Linux.
- userbinator 1y ago
  They started going down that route many years ago now (Windows 10 "telemetry" being a critical inflection point), but the Microsoft of the 80s and 90s and even early 2000s was not about mass surveillance but selling software.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Perhaps you’re right, but by the time Microsoft acquired Hotmail in 1997, MSN was already two years old and had its own dialup service. Microsoft knew what they were doing.
    - twilo 1y ago
      Yes but like the post above says MS didn’t start to “monetize” their users until the 2000s and it was mainly because Google set up that beautiful business model… on top of Microsoft’s platform (Windows) which makes the whole thing really funny
      - TeMPOraL 1y ago
        The irony may be much stronger than that; I'd go as far as suggesting that Microsoft went for that business model because of the antitrust case.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        It seems like a modern truism: There is no such thing as an anti-war movie, because anti-war imagery is the same imagery that pro-war films use, it’s just the interpretation and meanings are reversed. Might it also be true, that there is no such thing as effective antitrust enforcement, because the one doing the investigating and enforcement is unwilling or unable to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, because their own employer’s budget and state apparatus directly and indirectly relies upon taxing golden eggs. Perhaps we’re all just carrying water for giants and giant-collaborators, whether or not giants even exist.
        TeMPOraL 1y ago
        I didn't imply foul play. I never studied the details and I actually like a bit of vertical integration in tech (but not like Apple does it), so I don't have strong views about that case - but even assuming Microsoft really was in the wrong here and were justly told to stop, what I'm much more sure of is, advertising-based business models are worse, but also this was not obvious at the time. Still isn't to many. And so when Microsoft could not make money doing a bad thing, that became illegal, they turned to an even worse thing that wasn't (and still isn't) illegal.
        aspenmayer 1y ago

JimDabell 1y ago

> Apple is getting sued by the DOJ for purposely hobbling Safari I don’t believe the lawsuit claims this, does it? > which allows Apple to skim 30% off any purchase made through an app. This is untrue. - Most developers pay 15% for in-app purchases. Only the tiny proportion of developers earning more than a million dollars a year pay 30% and even then, it’s 15% for subscriptions after the first year. - This is not any purchase made through an app. This only applies to digital goods and services.