__/ [ [H]omer ] on Saturday 02 September 2006 06:51 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Praising Microsoft - and attacked by wolves
> ...
>>
http://biz.yahoo.com/hftn/060901/090106_fastforward_microsoft_fortune.html?.v=1
>
> His rebuttal includes:
>
> "OK, these people are all, in their ways, correct. The inventions that
> enabled the PC revolution and the Internet did not, mostly, come from
> Microsoft.
>
> But I'll stick to my argument in spite of these compelling letters
> because Microsoft by my analysis is the company that more than any other
> got all that technology into the hands of real people.
>
> Good technology needs good marketing"
>
> What he seems to be either ignorant of, or conveniently ignoring, is the
> underhand *methods* that MS used to achieve this "revolution", at the
> expense of everyone else:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gq3zs (groups.google.co.uk)
Good link.
,----[ Some bits ]
| Ignoring W3C Standards:
| http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,39020381,2132448,00.htm
|
| Corrupting XML Standards:
| http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/04/23/deviant.html
|
| "Embracing" Java and other technologies:
| http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Embrace,-extend-and-extinguish
|
| > * Restriction of choice - MS extracts onerous terms from PC
| > manufacturers & retailers to try to ensure that Windows, and only
| > Windows, is shipped with PCs.
|
| Running scared, "Anonymous Coward" OEMs write:
| http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
|
| > * Controlling technology through acquisition - if a technology competes
| > with MS products, or threatens to wrest control of some part of the
| > computing landscape from MS, it simply buys the company and either shuts
| > it down, cripples the technology, or integrates it into the Windows
| > proprietary environment. (This is believed by many people, but are there
| > examples? Are there examples where a good technology that might have
| > benefitted users has been squashed by MS purely for business reasons?).
|
| The now infamous GeCad "acquisition":
| http://www.vnunet.com/news/1141750
|
| The *true* origins of "Internet Explorer":
| http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Internet-Explorer
| http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,11001454,00.htm
|
| Microsoft's attempt to assimilate Kerberos:
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/02/158204
| http://tinyurl.com/623c9 (Archived copy of LinuxWorld article - offline)
|
| > * MS uses vapourware to damage rivals with existing products - along the
| > lines of 'why buy from that company when we'll give it to you free with
| > Windows in six months'.
|
| The Caldera case:
| http://tinyurl.com/44kbp (Archived link)
|
| Microsoft's failed attempt to sabotage Sony and others:
| http://tinyurl.com/56kyw (Book on Amazon - commercial link).
|
| > * MS's giveaway of IE in its OS is often stated as one example of its
| > aggressive marketing, in that it heavily damaged Netscape. But are there
| > good arguments as to why MS shouldn't have done this?
|
| "Giving it away" is only half the story:
| http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/03/01/ms_oem_boss_shocked_by/
| http://news.com.com/2100-1001-820227.html
|
| > Apple includes a browser with its OSX, after all.
|
| Apple have only recently introduced their own browser (Safari), in a
| climate where the market for commercial browsers has already been
| virtually destroyed. Additionally, I haven't heard any reports of Apple
| VARS being bribed to "keep Opera off the (Mac) Desktop". In the light of
| the Microsoft anti-trust verdicts, it is highly unlikely that any company
| would risk repeating such a (what is now) high profile violation.
|
| > In what ways do you think MS's behaviour with IE was unreasonable?
|
| In exactly the same way that the DOJ thought is was unreasonable.
|
| > I don't want to get into the open/closed source argument just yet -
| > that's a wider discussion. I want to stick with what people perceive as
| > MS's shoddy business practices.
|
| Try this:
|
| http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm
| http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
|
| And a nice summary:
|
| http://www.computerweekly.com/Article666.htm
|
| You missed this angle ...
| "Microsoft's *control* of customers and the industry"
| http://www.website101.com/arch/archive99.html
|
| That WMP EULA "update":
| http://bsdvault.net/article.php?sid=527&mode=&order=0
|
| The TCPA nightmare:
| http://antitcpa.alsherok.net/phpnuke/html/
| http://www.sjc.uq.edu.au/insite/edition_7/Lifestyle/Computer%20Privac...
| http://www.windows1984.com/topics/trustedcomputing/
| http://www.crime-research.org/news/2003/07/Mess0602.html
|
| Some additional research:
| http://tinyurl.com/6beq7 (Google search of El Reg)
| http://thepopulist.typepad.com/essays/2003/10/the_trails_of_m.html
| http://www.longhornblogs.com/scobleizer/archive/2003/10/22/345.aspx
| http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
`----
|
|
