4 ms·

I don't know where your quote is from, but trying to own the "default" web browser and tying it to your OS monopoly seems like a pretty great idea from a "makin

by wredcoll 10mo ago

I don't know where your quote is from, but trying to own the "default" web browser and tying it to your OS monopoly seems like a pretty great idea from a "making money" perspective, if perhaps not a legal or ethical one.

falcor84 10mo ago
It's from Joel Spolsky in that post linked by the grandparent, from 2006. And that's exactly what I'm saying - it was one honking great idea. Microsoft saw how central the web is becoming, and integrated it into the OS As for legality, I'm not a lawyer and definitely not an antitrust one, but as I see it, an OS is almost by definition an amorphous collection of tools that users need to make proper use of their computer and nowadays I can't imagine an OS that doesn't come with a browser, so would argue that they were absolutely right in integrating it. If anything, I see much more merit in suing them for abusing their OS monopoly to go into the solitaire gaming space.
- endemic 10mo ago
  You're looking at it from the modern perspective. What Microsoft did was use their monopoly power to destroy a potential competitor -- the first step of the "EEE" trifecta.
  - falcor84 10mo ago
    I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but I don't think that they, or anyone, should be disallowed to Embrace new technologies. There has to be a better approach to antitrust.
  - CamperBob2 10mo ago
    They never "destroyed" anyone who didn't have it coming. I remember paying for Netscape 4, and I remember the pile of steaming garbage I got when I did that.
    - WillAdams 10mo ago
      They destroyed MacBASIC --- as a person who suffered through using Microsoft BASIC for Macintosh, that's not something I'll forget.
roenxi 10mo ago
Legal problem, absolutely. But it is hard to spin bundling a web browser as an ethical concern - especially from MS's perspective. Everything they put in the OS is a component bundled with the OS. Some components being legally special and problematic would have been quite confusing to them when it first hit. Web browsers aren't special and there is an expectation that an OS can access the internet using a variety of protocols. The ethical issue would be around making it technically harder for competitors to create a web browser. Eg, standard practice on mobile phones (which is worse than anything MS ever did and has always seemed fine to me).

falcor84 10mo ago

It's from Joel Spolsky in that post linked by the grandparent, from 2006. And that's exactly what I'm saying - it was one honking great idea. Microsoft saw how central the web is becoming, and integrated it into the OS As for legality, I'm not a lawyer and definitely not an antitrust one, but as I see it, an OS is almost by definition an amorphous collection of tools that users need to make proper use of their computer and nowadays I can't imagine an OS that doesn't come with a browser, so would argue that they were absolutely right in integrating it. If anything, I see much more merit in suing them for abusing their OS monopoly to go into the solitaire gaming space.

endemic 10mo ago
You're looking at it from the modern perspective. What Microsoft did was use their monopoly power to destroy a potential competitor -- the first step of the "EEE" trifecta.
- falcor84 10mo ago
  I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but I don't think that they, or anyone, should be disallowed to Embrace new technologies. There has to be a better approach to antitrust.
- CamperBob2 10mo ago
  They never "destroyed" anyone who didn't have it coming. I remember paying for Netscape 4, and I remember the pile of steaming garbage I got when I did that.
  - WillAdams 10mo ago
    They destroyed MacBASIC --- as a person who suffered through using Microsoft BASIC for Macintosh, that's not something I'll forget.

roenxi 10mo ago

Legal problem, absolutely. But it is hard to spin bundling a web browser as an ethical concern - especially from MS's perspective. Everything they put in the OS is a component bundled with the OS. Some components being legally special and problematic would have been quite confusing to them when it first hit. Web browsers aren't special and there is an expectation that an OS can access the internet using a variety of protocols. The ethical issue would be around making it technically harder for competitors to create a web browser. Eg, standard practice on mobile phones (which is worse than anything MS ever did and has always seemed fine to me).