51–60 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you forced to use it? I certainly don't use it. I was able to remove it from Windows without any problems. You don't like it? you can use Linux or buy a Mac. There are very credible alternatives today. Edge is bundled with Windows and Chrome still has 80% of the market or more. I still don't see the problem.
[flagged]
Jeez man. Everyone keeps bashing on Microsoft for this shit. Have they seen Google, Amazon, etc?
Apple is the worst of the bunch imo. My personal ranking for worst antitrust offenders would be: 1) Apple 2) Amazon 3) Google 4) Microsoft Internationally that may be slightly different though. I’d also maybe include meta for their oculus purchase but I think they’ve tied it into their core, “social” business well enough that I’m not very concerned at the moment when there are bigger fish to fry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome when it released was faster than Firefox, but it wasn't "better". It ate far more RAM than either Firefox or IE did (and still does), back when RAM capacities were still practically limited, and Chrome was (and is) rendering the internet in Chrome ways much like IE did in Trident ways and Firefox has in Gecko ways. Chrome also had and still has its own UI paradigms, including no title bar, menu bar, nor status…
Back then I remember switching to Chrome for these reasons: 1. Feeling faster than firefox (still does) 2. Process separation for tabs. Firefox used to crash the whole browser, whereas chrome would crash just a single tab. 3. Shipped with support for Flash and PDFs
It’s painful using Chrome by comparison. If it wasn’t for Chromes better dev tools I doubt I’d use it much
This is really good, but needs to be done in parallel with the investigation of how Google destroyed a thriving browser market just as it was recovering from IE. (Massive ad campaigns, and products that had weird bugs in other browsers for no good reason.)
"massive ad campaigns" is hardly an antitrust matter. Chrome ate Firefox and IE back in the day because it was monumentally better, technologically speaking.
The difference between Firefox and IE was orders of magnitude larger than the difference between Chrome and Firefox. The explosive growth from Chrome can't be explained just by it being better than competition, or Firefox would have replaced IE in 6 months earlier.
The real explanation is that Chrome benefited from immeasurable (can't really calculate the cost of chrome being advertised prominently on every Google property) amounts of advertising.
Jeez man. Everyone keeps bashing on Microsoft for this shit. Have they seen Google, Amazon, etc?
Apple is the worst of the bunch imo. My personal ranking for worst antitrust offenders would be: 1) Apple 2) Amazon 3) Google 4) Microsoft Internationally that may be slightly different though. I’d also maybe include meta for their oculus purchase but I think they’ve tied it into their core, “social” business well enough that I’m not very concerned at the moment when there are bigger fish to fry.
What really irritates me is that they are the worst in most cases yet they PR themselves out of this. They sell themselves as the customer-privacy focused, environmentally conscious, smart and young company except that in reality it's exactly the opposite and they apply the most vile corporate tactics ever know to man. Hell, they even invented some.
My employer is a prime example for this case: We use Microsoft 365 because we need Microsoft Office and use their email hosting. And then we use Teams simply because it's already included in the package anyway, even though many employees hate it, but it's hard to argue for another solution because why pay for Slack when we already have Teams "for free"? And since Teams doesn't really need to compete on functionality…
My employer is a prime example for this case: We use Microsoft 365 because we need Microsoft Office and use their email hosting. And then we use Teams simply because it's already included in the package anyway, even though many employees hate it, but it's hard to argue for another solution because why pay for Slack when we already have Teams "for free"? And since Teams doesn't really need to compete on functionality…
Saw the same pattern with 3 employers over the past 5 years. One killed Slack and all institutional knowledge in its search engine within a month. One replaced all remaining Intel Macs (not an insignificant amount) because Teams would being them to a standstill. The last one is currently happening and I'm wondering what unexpected cost will come to haunt this decision this time. Though one thing that always suffers i…
Although it's bad now, in Feb 2020 Teams was genuinely unusable hot garbage, chats didn't work, calls dropped often, files wouldn't attach to messages etc. Microsoft, for all their sins, recognised the imminent need for mass work-from-home tools relatively early, and made huge improvements to the platform before the end of March. By mid-April was in a usable state.
Slack's better software, but better software's not going to be adopted if it's missing or hiding huge key features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is the worst of the bunch imo. My personal ranking for worst antitrust offenders would be: 1) Apple 2) Amazon 3) Google 4) Microsoft Internationally that may be slightly different though. I’d also maybe include meta for their oculus purchase but I think they’ve tied it into their core, “social” business well enough that I’m not very concerned at the moment when there are bigger fish to fry.
Nope. Google. They are on their way to corner the browser market. They've already killed Operas Presto and about every other engine except research engines and Firefox. Chrome and the way they pushed it with ads on the front page of Google [1]. The way Calendar and YouTube again and again has issues with Firefox. Or how some things just doesn't work in anything except Chrome - but hey, if you change how the browser i…
My employer is a prime example for this case: We use Microsoft 365 because we need Microsoft Office and use their email hosting. And then we use Teams simply because it's already included in the package anyway, even though many employees hate it, but it's hard to argue for another solution because why pay for Slack when we already have Teams "for free"? And since Teams doesn't really need to compete on functionality…
I tried using the linux client but it simply will not allow me to connect to anyone and keeps telling me I need to login and enable teams on my "account" (we do not have a microsoft company account).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple, Google, Tesla etc seem to have mastered the art of regulatory dodgeball through observational experience and a successful series of pr campaigns of brand identity. There's no better evidence than HN itself where it's common practice to defend these companies for the analogous actions. That same perception is why I think ms tends to be under scrutiny, as it should, but others don't. It's a real shame.
Apple and Tesla don’t have a monopoly. But the eye of Sauron gazes on Apple too (eg they are forced to end their Lightning connector). As is Google: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_...