Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjmlp | Hacker News Reader

I think you mean Google.

No. The Microsoft. MS invented the term. DOJ found that MS used "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" in internal documents.

Younger people don't know how absolutely ruthless and harmful Wintel monopoly was under Gates. Java did not work on purpose. Javascript did not work for purpose.

   <!--[if IE]>

everywhere.

They attempted to kill open web in the crib with their blackbird project. Only MSN (The Microsoft Network) for normal people.

Except it Google that morphed the Web into ChromeOS, with the help of EVERYONE that ships it alongside their applications, as they can't be bothered to learn cross-platform frameworks.

Many of them people that used to complain about Micro$oft and should know better.

Anyone who was around for the IE6 era knows how much worse it was than the current Chrome era. It's not even close.

Born in the 70's, coding since 1986.

Started with DOS and became a Windows programmer. If it's OK to submit false statements, then why not add one more.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-proposed-findings...

See 91.3.2

Yes I know how it was, and MS bullshit hate doesn't help, while worshiping how Google and Apple have taken over the Web and mobile devices.

Why are you posing criticizing MS vs Google as a dichotomy? Both are a piece of shit, MS even to this day. nabla9 is absolutely right, read the history.

Because many MS bashers are hypocrite in the way they worship Google and Apple, while doing most worse, succeeding where MS failed.

Nothing from here to the parent post suggests any defense of Google. It's you who brought it up.

You clearly don't remember or know about how bad it was in IE6 era and before.

Born in the 70's, coding since 1986

Just two things:

- Active X.

- VB6, OLE, VBA macros and friends.

Merge both. Now you have a propietary hell full of vulnerabilities.

Said this, I don't like Google's world dominance on the smartphones/web/email/chat/maps/video platforms, neither.

*Apple it's just sucessful in the US.

Agreed that it is a Microsoft term. But in my experience, it is older people who incorrectly judge Microsoft ruthlessness, not younger people. I am of an age where I remember well what Microsoft was like in those days, and it frankly was not as bad as people make it out to be. Nor was it really worse than the ruthless tech companies of today.

I was there too, and I disagree completely. Microsoft was not just ruthless, they were ubiquitous. They sabotaged any perceived competitors in anticompetitive, market- and industry-damaging ways.

You (the generic "you") can complain all you want about Apple today, but you have another perfectly viable option. And Apple is (almost-entirely) happy to grow market share on merits without salting the earth of any rivals.

In Microsoft's heyday, that was not true. Those of us who rejected MS back then did so at a much higher cost than green chat bubbles.

It was worth it though. And we did win, eventually.

> ...without salting the earth of any rivals.

Microsoft embodied the adage "It's not enough to win. Everyone else must lose."

Microsoft could not win, although they tried very hard.

Windows was never going to scale down to the portable devices that we now use (because defeating Apple would have been very difficult, and AOSP made it insurmountable).

Windows was never going to scale up to the top 500 supercomputer list (for largely economic reasons).

Microsoft itself has tacitly admitted that Azure is better served by Linux, and we ponder why.

Did the DoJ actions against Microsoft really have an impact? I don't know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com