> Google has taken a page out of its decades-long playbook for litigating against antitrust enforcers. It is funding – directly and indirectly – various industry commentators and academics to attack Microsoft and author “studies” that can be cited to discredit us.
It's sad how they've become the slimy evil company like the ones they made fun of when they were starting up. "We are not like those tie-wearing evil corporations, look at our fun and bright colors!". Yet years later, here they are, the same type of monster they were pointing their fingers at.
> This was also the basis of the changes we proactively made to our popular business and enterprise productivity suites last year: creating versions without Teams [...] We’ve made these changes, and others, not because we believed we were doing something improper
Come on, Rima, we can read between the lines. We're not in court here and no need to pretend. Microsoft knew exactly where it was headed. Just because Google is up to dirty tricks, doesn't automatically turn Microsoft into a fluffy bunny.
I'm still surprised how very quickly Google ruined their reputation. They were still highly regarded a decade ago, at least way more than they are now. But they continued to burn their reputation to the ground in the next few years.
Yeah, I remember wanting to work there. It was _the_ place to be for top engineering talent. But now I feel like I dodged a bullet failing their little leetcode puzzles.
> Fundamentally, Google’s argument is that it should not have to pay Microsoft when it builds and offers cloud services using our intellectual property – namely Windows Server – if customers have otherwise purchased the same software for a very different use, i.e., on their own server.
Wait, hang on, astroturfing aside, I think I'm on Google's side here. If I bought a Windows server license, and I want to use that license on a server in GCP/Azure/AWS, why should I have to buy another one?
Yeah, I suspect that's why they're trying to focus on how Google is campaigning rather than what they're campaigning for.
Because it sounds like Microsoft is trying to force current customers who are going from on-prem to cloud to use Azure or re-pay licensing fees. Which does seem like anticompetitive bullshit to me and something that shouldn't be allowed.
Anyone remember that time Microsoft covertly gave SCO a bunch of money to wage lawfare against Linux vendors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Mic...
> Google has taken a page out of its decades-long playbook for litigating against antitrust enforcers. It is funding – directly and indirectly – various industry commentators and academics to attack Microsoft and author “studies” that can be cited to discredit us.
It's sad how they've become the slimy evil company like the ones they made fun of when they were starting up. "We are not like those tie-wearing evil corporations, look at our fun and bright colors!". Yet years later, here they are, the same type of monster they were pointing their fingers at.
> This was also the basis of the changes we proactively made to our popular business and enterprise productivity suites last year: creating versions without Teams [...] We’ve made these changes, and others, not because we believed we were doing something improper
Come on, Rima, we can read between the lines. We're not in court here and no need to pretend. Microsoft knew exactly where it was headed. Just because Google is up to dirty tricks, doesn't automatically turn Microsoft into a fluffy bunny.
I'm still surprised how very quickly Google ruined their reputation. They were still highly regarded a decade ago, at least way more than they are now. But they continued to burn their reputation to the ground in the next few years.
Yeah, I remember wanting to work there. It was _the_ place to be for top engineering talent. But now I feel like I dodged a bullet failing their little leetcode puzzles.
> Fundamentally, Google’s argument is that it should not have to pay Microsoft when it builds and offers cloud services using our intellectual property – namely Windows Server – if customers have otherwise purchased the same software for a very different use, i.e., on their own server.
Wait, hang on, astroturfing aside, I think I'm on Google's side here. If I bought a Windows server license, and I want to use that license on a server in GCP/Azure/AWS, why should I have to buy another one?
Yeah, I suspect that's why they're trying to focus on how Google is campaigning rather than what they're campaigning for.
Because it sounds like Microsoft is trying to force current customers who are going from on-prem to cloud to use Azure or re-pay licensing fees. Which does seem like anticompetitive bullshit to me and something that shouldn't be allowed.
The author starts with their supposed honesty and continues with unabashed hypocrisy.
And if owning a DVD helps me build a movie library in the service of the movie creator, it should help in building it in any other service.
Previously at the time (17 days ago)
(19 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41973730
(31 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41977108
> This week an astroturf group organized by Google
Oh, for pity's sake. It takes one to know one. Leading up to the 1999-2000 antitrust trial, Microsoft organized tons of astroturf groups.
If any company deserved to be broken up, it is/was Microsoft.
This is like reading an open letter from Stalin to Hitler
(Not saying either of of them are Nazis or Communists per se, just that neither of them is the Good Guy™)
"Don't be evil" has become "Hide your evil". (At least try to anyway).