71–75 of 75 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. Would you do the work to make your product SUPPORT 2% of the market?
What work? They can just let Windows Phone users access the site and fend for themselves. I would say writing the code for the redirect is more work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not adding value to your competitor's products for free is simply competitive and part of normal business. "Anti-competitive" is a different thing and means using market power to suppress competition, whereas this move is about intensifying it.
First of all, forget "not adding value to your competitor's product" - this is about removing value that was already there. Secondly, Google has market power in both the mobile device OS market and the online map market compared to MS, and is trying to leverage its position in the latter to hurt MS in the former. This seems like exactly your stated definition of anti-competitive behavior. How is this "intensifying" c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason chrome was not supported earlier is probably because OWA possibly used some arcane and non-standard IE features that were lacking in chrome. Also AFAIK it never blocked the OWA outright (by redirecting to some other url instead)
My specific recollection is this: On Ubuntu at home, I used Chrome for most things. But I specifically installed Firefox to be able to use the "better" version of OWA. OWA would still work on Chrome, but it would automatically downgrade to the less-capable version. Presumably, Chrome and Firefox were similar enough that the same code should have worked with both.
That being said, screw you Google, this is not OK. Maybe its business, but its not right. Time to start destroying my Google profile with Ghostery et al.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, they do now; it's a pretty sensible business decision given Chrome's market share. But there was some period of time after it came out -- I can't recall how long -- when Chrome was officially not supported by OWA (Outlook Web Access). I work at Microsoft (but not on any product related to these) and I'm quite certain that this was the case.
The reason chrome was not supported earlier is probably because OWA possibly used some arcane and non-standard IE features that were lacking in chrome. Also AFAIK it never blocked the OWA outright (by redirecting to some other url instead)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing 'Anti-Competitive' about not providing your free service to customers of your competitor. If people want Google services they can choose Android. It's worth remembering that Android was developed in the first place to be an Open alternative to prevent Windows phone from taking off. Why would they go to all the trouble of developing Android only to prop up Microsoft.
Of course it's anti-competitive! They took something that was working on a competitor's phone platform and intentionally caused it to stop working. It's probably not illegal , but if it's designed to harm a competitor it is by definition anti-competitive.