> 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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
(19 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41973730
(31 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41977108
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.