6 ms·

Uhh, Poor Steve having to save the company because it was at the brink of extinction due to the evil government action of the US and the EU is about as revision

Uhh, Poor Steve having to save the company because it was at the brink of extinction due to the evil government action of the US and the EU is about as revisionist as it comes. Look, that company violated antitrust laws left and right and Steve Balmer was instrumental in this sordid affair. I'm neither a Microsoft hater (I actually think their OS offerings since XP are pretty solid) but that's just so much revisionist bullshit I couldn't even finish the article. Microsoft was not punished for being big and successful. They where punished (and rightfully so) for repeatedly and purposefully violating the law in a multitude of jusrisdictions.

yulaow 13y ago
"funny" fact: they also did not respect the punishment EU gave them, so they were punished again over it. Microsoft has serious problems with let the competitors a chance to compete. edit to add data: http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/6/4069126/eu-fines-microsoft-for-windows-7-sp1-browser-ballot http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/6/4069126/eu-fines-microsoft-...
- revelation 13y ago
  the general caution about antitrust that then pervaded the Microsoft culture Thats certainly wrong. They at some point just stopped shipping the browser choice utility they had been forced by the EU to ship, and it took a year for anyone to notice: The Windows 7 SP1 retail release was initially missing BrowserChoice.eu functionality, affecting 28 million computers. The error remained unpatched for 14 months, and as a result in March 2013 the European Commission fined Microsoft €561 million.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    It didn't take a year for anyone to notice, it took a year until the investigation was finished and another fine was announced. Concerning that Microsoft is a test-obsessed company, failing to test properly for an error that could cost you multiple millions is also a huge blunder. This was failing to live up to a legal oblication, not a mere bug.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      It was failing with a legal obligation and trying to get away with it, hoping nobody else would notice. Do you really thing they forgot to bundle the browser selection tool?
      - Argorak 13y ago
        Quite the opposite, I find it highly unlikely that they would gamble on an amount that equates to that size, especially as there are a number of competitors watching out. And yes, I can imagine such a failure with a build matrix as big as the one of windows. A very simple explanation would be: * QA department sits outside of europe * Department is improperly briefed (not that unlikely to happen) * Automatic tests fail (happens to the best of us)
- CaptainZapp 13y ago
  I don't even think that was intentional. It may have just been a (very expensive) mistake. However, if you're convicted of a crime you should tread very delicately and carefully in order to avoid being busted again. Maybe it's arrogance, maybe it's carelesness, maybe it's even an honest mistake. But they sure as hell violated their "probation" and that comes with a price.
- hga 13y ago
  Echoing the other two sub-sub-thread commentators right now, this sounds like yet another (half-)billion dollar failure to execute. Still, it's rather telling.
- winter_blue 13y ago
  > Microsoft has serious problems with let the competitors a chance to compete. When you come down to it, there's a lot of circumstance involved. For instance, take iOS -- it doesn't allow any other browser engine WebKit/UIWebView. And no one is suing Apple over it.
  - yulaow 13y ago
    That's because the marketshare of ios on mobile systems (13,4% worldwide [1]) is not comparable with the marketshare of windows in pc systems (90% worldwide [2]) Microsoft windows is in a strong dominating position, ios not [1] http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screen-shot-2013-08-07-at-11-36-54-am.png http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screen-s... [2] http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    > For instance, take iOS -- it doesn't allow any other browser engine WebKit/UIWebView. Get back to me when 90+% of smartphones from all major manufacturers are sold with iOS. It's not just being anti-competitive - it's being an anti-competitive monopoly.
    - winter_blue 13y ago
      I don't think anything will change even if/when iOS has 90%+ of the market share. Thing are going to remain the same, and Apple will get what it wants.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bcoates 13y ago
In 2013 there are still people who think including a browser in your OS is optional, let alone some sort of evil conspiracy?
- yulaow 13y ago
  The EU request was not to not include any browser at all, it was about include many to give the chance, to the user, to chose the one he wants to use and bind it to the system, while microsoft wanted to force the adoption of ie also binding it strictly with the system (aka clicking a link on a textfile or a random program would open it on ie also if you set another browser as default on your system).
  - justin66 13y ago
    This is all so strange, given the way IE's popularity went down and Chrome and Mozilla took off despite Microsoft's forgetting/willfully neglecting to keep the mandated features in there. It's as if computer users were intelligent enough to find alternate browsers without the EU-mandated browser selection screen Microsoft was supposed to club them over the head with.
    - chrismonsanto 13y ago
      That IE was usurped was pure serendipity. Microsoft had a monopoly on the browser market and their strategy was--wait for it--do NOTHING. Leave a critical piece of software to rot and die. Their monopoly let IE6, a total PoS, maintain a lead in the browser market for years and years and years despite the complete inferiority of the offering. The web would have been a different place if Microsoft actually developed IE6. It could have been the gold standard, the Microsoft Office, to our Google LibreOffices and Mozilla AbiWords.
      - bhauer 13y ago
        I think there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to suggest the US vs Microsoft settlement played a significant part in the stagnation of Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer 6 was released on August 27, 2001 [1]. The anti-trust case was settled on November 2, 2001 [2]. After IE 6, Internet Explorer effectively went into hibernation for five years. Was there correlation? I don't know for certain--I wasn't there. But it seems likely that work stopped on IE in large part because of the settlement. For this reason, I would remind any web developer who complains about IE 6 to reserve a bit of their vitriol for the United States government for meddling in this marketplace. After a while, Microsoft started testing the browser water again, slowly at first. I now think IE 10 is as good a browser as Firefox or Chrome, perhaps in some different ways. I remain a Firefox fan, but I am glad that Microsoft is back in the browser game because I was already starting to feel nervous about Webkit domination in the past 1-2 years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corporation#Settlement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp...
justin66 13y ago
> Microsoft was not punished for being big and successful. Oddly, that's exactly wrong when you're talking about antitrust law. They were punished for being big and successful. The tactics and legal limitations on tactics involved are only relevant to a company large enough to affect the entire market.
- yuhong 13y ago
  >The tactics and legal limitations on tactics involved are only relevant to a company large enough to affect the entire market. True, but it is not enough by themselves.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    They were punished for being big and successful and dishonest. Or successful and dishonest, which allowed them to also become big.
    - bcoates 13y ago
      Dishonesty is not required to break antitrust laws. All you have to do is become big and fail to stop doing the things that only non-big companies can legally do.
      - rbanffy 13y ago
        Right. And they did that in good faith, without ever realizing it was wrong.
        bcoates 13y ago
        It isn't wrong, it's just illegal.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        Sure. It's perfectly right, except it's illegal, much like lying on your tax forms or robbing banks.
27182818284 13y ago
>law in a multitude of jusrisdictions. That's really poignant to me. It isn't just like they messed up once, in one place with tricky laws, it was both the EU and the US that felt they were out of line.

yulaow 13y ago

"funny" fact: they also did not respect the punishment EU gave them, so they were punished again over it. Microsoft has serious problems with let the competitors a chance to compete. edit to add data: http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/6/4069126/eu-fines-microsoft-for-windows-7-sp1-browser-ballot http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/6/4069126/eu-fines-microsoft-...

revelation 13y ago
the general caution about antitrust that then pervaded the Microsoft culture Thats certainly wrong. They at some point just stopped shipping the browser choice utility they had been forced by the EU to ship, and it took a year for anyone to notice: The Windows 7 SP1 retail release was initially missing BrowserChoice.eu functionality, affecting 28 million computers. The error remained unpatched for 14 months, and as a result in March 2013 the European Commission fined Microsoft €561 million.
- Argorak 13y ago
  It didn't take a year for anyone to notice, it took a year until the investigation was finished and another fine was announced. Concerning that Microsoft is a test-obsessed company, failing to test properly for an error that could cost you multiple millions is also a huge blunder. This was failing to live up to a legal oblication, not a mere bug.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    It was failing with a legal obligation and trying to get away with it, hoping nobody else would notice. Do you really thing they forgot to bundle the browser selection tool?
    - Argorak 13y ago
      Quite the opposite, I find it highly unlikely that they would gamble on an amount that equates to that size, especially as there are a number of competitors watching out. And yes, I can imagine such a failure with a build matrix as big as the one of windows. A very simple explanation would be: * QA department sits outside of europe * Department is improperly briefed (not that unlikely to happen) * Automatic tests fail (happens to the best of us)
CaptainZapp 13y ago
I don't even think that was intentional. It may have just been a (very expensive) mistake. However, if you're convicted of a crime you should tread very delicately and carefully in order to avoid being busted again. Maybe it's arrogance, maybe it's carelesness, maybe it's even an honest mistake. But they sure as hell violated their "probation" and that comes with a price.
hga 13y ago
Echoing the other two sub-sub-thread commentators right now, this sounds like yet another (half-)billion dollar failure to execute. Still, it's rather telling.
winter_blue 13y ago
> Microsoft has serious problems with let the competitors a chance to compete. When you come down to it, there's a lot of circumstance involved. For instance, take iOS -- it doesn't allow any other browser engine WebKit/UIWebView. And no one is suing Apple over it.
- yulaow 13y ago
  That's because the marketshare of ios on mobile systems (13,4% worldwide [1]) is not comparable with the marketshare of windows in pc systems (90% worldwide [2]) Microsoft windows is in a strong dominating position, ios not [1] http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screen-shot-2013-08-07-at-11-36-54-am.png http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screen-s... [2] http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > For instance, take iOS -- it doesn't allow any other browser engine WebKit/UIWebView. Get back to me when 90+% of smartphones from all major manufacturers are sold with iOS. It's not just being anti-competitive - it's being an anti-competitive monopoly.
  - winter_blue 13y ago
    I don't think anything will change even if/when iOS has 90%+ of the market share. Thing are going to remain the same, and Apple will get what it wants.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bcoates 13y ago

In 2013 there are still people who think including a browser in your OS is optional, let alone some sort of evil conspiracy?

yulaow 13y ago
The EU request was not to not include any browser at all, it was about include many to give the chance, to the user, to chose the one he wants to use and bind it to the system, while microsoft wanted to force the adoption of ie also binding it strictly with the system (aka clicking a link on a textfile or a random program would open it on ie also if you set another browser as default on your system).
- justin66 13y ago
  This is all so strange, given the way IE's popularity went down and Chrome and Mozilla took off despite Microsoft's forgetting/willfully neglecting to keep the mandated features in there. It's as if computer users were intelligent enough to find alternate browsers without the EU-mandated browser selection screen Microsoft was supposed to club them over the head with.
  - chrismonsanto 13y ago
    That IE was usurped was pure serendipity. Microsoft had a monopoly on the browser market and their strategy was--wait for it--do NOTHING. Leave a critical piece of software to rot and die. Their monopoly let IE6, a total PoS, maintain a lead in the browser market for years and years and years despite the complete inferiority of the offering. The web would have been a different place if Microsoft actually developed IE6. It could have been the gold standard, the Microsoft Office, to our Google LibreOffices and Mozilla AbiWords.
    - bhauer 13y ago
      I think there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to suggest the US vs Microsoft settlement played a significant part in the stagnation of Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer 6 was released on August 27, 2001 [1]. The anti-trust case was settled on November 2, 2001 [2]. After IE 6, Internet Explorer effectively went into hibernation for five years. Was there correlation? I don't know for certain--I wasn't there. But it seems likely that work stopped on IE in large part because of the settlement. For this reason, I would remind any web developer who complains about IE 6 to reserve a bit of their vitriol for the United States government for meddling in this marketplace. After a while, Microsoft started testing the browser water again, slowly at first. I now think IE 10 is as good a browser as Firefox or Chrome, perhaps in some different ways. I remain a Firefox fan, but I am glad that Microsoft is back in the browser game because I was already starting to feel nervous about Webkit domination in the past 1-2 years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corporation#Settlement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp...

justin66 13y ago

> Microsoft was not punished for being big and successful. Oddly, that's exactly wrong when you're talking about antitrust law. They were punished for being big and successful. The tactics and legal limitations on tactics involved are only relevant to a company large enough to affect the entire market.

yuhong 13y ago
>The tactics and legal limitations on tactics involved are only relevant to a company large enough to affect the entire market. True, but it is not enough by themselves.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  They were punished for being big and successful and dishonest. Or successful and dishonest, which allowed them to also become big.
  - bcoates 13y ago
    Dishonesty is not required to break antitrust laws. All you have to do is become big and fail to stop doing the things that only non-big companies can legally do.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      Right. And they did that in good faith, without ever realizing it was wrong.
      - bcoates 13y ago
        It isn't wrong, it's just illegal.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        Sure. It's perfectly right, except it's illegal, much like lying on your tax forms or robbing banks.

27182818284 13y ago

>law in a multitude of jusrisdictions. That's really poignant to me. It isn't just like they messed up once, in one place with tricky laws, it was both the EU and the US that felt they were out of line.