Maybe they'll play nice now. But I believe that they'll still try to exert too much influence on everything they're involved in. It's how they roll.
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.
>> though no one anticipates a return to the old days
If they don't, they'll be a minor has-been by 2025, since they've never actually been an innovator.
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
3vi1:I do. http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
Thanks for the link. Sent it to some MS worshipers just now, and await their screams and writhing,.............
You're quoting a document written in the EU as pertains to the EU. The European Union has different standards in place for what constitutes monopoly and 'abuse' as compared to the US. This was also the case when discussing the AMD/Intel antitrust situation.
You're welcome to agree with the EU's stance on things but that doesn't translate into harm under American law as defined by the Sherman antitrust act and subsequent judicial decisions/legislative amendments over the past 120 years.
Secondly, there's an entirely different group of people running the company. The founders are (mostly) gone or occupy consulting positions. Microsoft isn't the young tough trying to make a name for itself anymore.
>> You're quoting a document written in the EU as pertains to the EU.
About things Microsoft did in the U.S. to U.S. competitors.
>> The European Union has different standards in place for what constitutes monopoly and 'abuse' as compared to the US.
>> translate into harm under American law as defined by the Sherman antitrust act
So you think they things they did, as outlined in the document, are perfectly acceptable business practices? There's a difference between legal and ethical. Should companies do everything they legally can, when it hurts the industry and their consumers?
>> there's an entirely different group of people running the company.
Right. The "evil" ones all left. There is no one greedy left at Microsoft.
Ballmer's not evil at all. He just likes to say there are hundreds of patents Linux is violating so that business can make an "informed decision". And when told to "Put up or shut up" by Linux Torvalds, he never names a single patent. No.. instead he sues 3rd party manufacturers with settlements that won't let them disclose the offending patents so that the community can either excise the code or have the patent invalidated.
And just because their stock took a 3% drop yesterday doesn't mean they're going to look to the old ways to drive it up again, right? So what if they lost another $726M in the habitually expensive online division.;. people will start using Bing without Microsoft using shady business practices. They know people will continue using MS Office forever - even without some crazy conspiracy theory where Ellison buys Sun and torpedos commercial support for OpenOffice for god only knows why. And of course surely the deal with Nokia was perfectly logical, and if that company goes down in flames it's all for the glory of the stockholders and not at all the fault of cronyisim.
We don't have to wait for Microsoft to start using underhanded practices... I'm pretty sure they're already doing it.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2013 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms