Microsoft is traditionally great at bundling their products. This is reminiscent of bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
Could an Okta have a claim against Microsoft similar to Netscape in the late 90's?
Could an Okta have a claim against Microsoft similar to Netscape in the late 90's?
Sometimes even within one company, there are multiple 2FA protocols, e.g. using Oracle single sign on for ERP apps but Okta for Citrix and other external facing apps.
Clearly, authenticating via Azure and also Okta would not be single sign on.
We use AAD for O365 and the few apps that won’t use generic SAML, but everything else uses Duo directly. The reason for this is at our O365 license level we don’t get the ability to restrict access to applications by AD group—everyone or we have to manually manage access account by account.
You federate AAD and Okta. Sign in to Okta and it's smooth sailing into AAD-based resources like M365.
Okta puts on a good dog and pony show for execs. From a technical perspective, they're no better for corps (at least in first party auth or B2B -- I don't get into the B2C space). We found, for the apps we used, AAD as of ~4 years ago had better SCIM support (!) than Okta.
On top of getting O365 E5 + Ent Sec (I think they're just now called M365 E5) which gave us AAD P2 licenses, overall it was much cheaper than Okta. The goal was to just get MFA, which Microsoft gives away for free (with limited toggles) or in P1 licenses (with more toggles) where-as Okta wanted $6/user/month _just for_ MFA.
Microsoft puts on a terrible sales pitch, though. We were fortunate enough to have an _awesome_ Principal Program Manager spend days with us in-person answering all of our questions and explaining AAD to our IT management.
Why would you do that?
Absolutely nothing came of Microsoft bundling IE with Windows in the 90s in the US. There was never a day since IE came bundled with Windows that it wasn’t bundled with Windows . There was never s browser choice initiative - nothing.
Out of all of the anti trust allegations, bundling was the nothingburger. MS was forced to stop making OEMs pay for licenses for all of their PCs whether or not they came with Windows and they were forcing OEMs to not include Netscape, share APIS, and document file formats.
Microsoft Office (bundling) has been a thing since 1990 and today, every single major company bundles products together - Apple, Amazon (Prime), Microsoft, Google, Adobe, Salesforce (SFFC and Concur), etc.
Next up: no, “cable was not ad free when it was introduced”
The consent decree never required them to change anything about IE in the US.
Add in the dominance of Office and Microsoft's presumed dominance of mobile once that became ubiquitous and a lot of people were looking for any lever to use against the company. All this activity probably made Microsoft back off a bit in some areas and likely tarnished its aura of inevitability a bit--but it's not entirely clear that it made much difference in the end. (And there were certainly people at the time arguing that the Microsoft winning over all narrative was deeply flawed.