View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2009, 02:51 AM
doogald
Oracle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 984

*sigh* I hate to bring up the history, but Microsoft signed a consent decree with the FTC in the early 1990s, agreeing not to bundle functionality within their operating system software that did not exist already in the OS at the time, and then proceeded to do just that with Windows95 and Windows98 (with IE). Thus far, neither Apple, RIM nor Google have been accused nor convicted of antitrust actions by the DOJ or FTC. Yet.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Interesting excerpt, showing Microsoft's hubris at trial:

Quote:
A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified. Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff . "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production." Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.

When the judge ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows which did not include Internet Explorer, Microsoft responded that the company would offer manufacturers a choice: one version of Windows that was obsolete, or another that did not work properly. The judge asked, "It seemed absolutely clear to you that I entered an order that required that you distribute a product that would not work?" David D. Cole, a Microsoft vice president, replied, "In plain English, yes. We followed that order. It wasn't my place to consider the consequences of that."
Thankfully, those days seem to be over for Microsoft.

As for Iris, I tried it out, and it was ok. But I can see that being an independent company developing for WM can be a tough game these days.
 
Reply With Quote