Does Company ‘X’ have an Azure Active Directory Tenant?

Bundling is anticompetitive and illegal. The MS ecosystem deserves close antitrust scrutiny.

Having Azure AD does not prevent clients from also having Okta or any other 2FA provider for 2 factor authentication. In fact, I have worked with at least 10 clients in the last 2 years that used Azure AD for authentication but then something else for 2-factor depending on the type of apps.

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.

Will this meme ever die?

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”

I initially had the same thought as the parent. From the perspective of so many companies relying on the security of one authentication provider (rather than any one company using AD for all their authentication needs).

So if AD were to be compromised, that would be significant impact.

There are of course advantages to such a "single point of failure" such as concerted effort in one place. But one way to mitigate the spof is transparency, and I'm reminded of LastPass versus Bitwarden.

What about coupling AAD with AADDS?