EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS


Donald Trump’s Trash Against China Helps Prop up Microsoft Monopoly and Distract From All the Microsoft Layoffs

Posted in Antitrust, Asia, Microsoft at 8:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Coming War on China (John Pilger) | Full Documentary

Trump Microsoft

Summary: Microsoft as a surveillance giant of the United States government isn’t a myth; it was first in the PRISM programme of the NSA (Bill Gates is a loud proponent of NSA surveillance), it took over European Skype under mysterious circumstances, and now it might be getting TikTok as a ‘gift’ from Donald Trump’s friends and the imperialists, in effect confiscating Chinese assets for full-spectrum dominance

THE Microsoft monopoly is still a problem. The Microsoft monopoly may be eroding/slipping away, but it is still harmful. Yesterday in Daily Links we included this article entitled “Microsoft’s Edge browser is crashing if you have Google set as default search” and to quote some sentences from the leading paragraph: “Microsoft’s new Edge browser started randomly crashing when users typed into the address bar tonight. The issues appear to have affected Edge users who have selected Google as the default search engine.” (This publisher is close to Microsoft, so this is followed by face-saving spin)

“The Microsoft monopoly may be eroding/slipping away, but it is still harmful.”Microsoft has a long, long history breaking and sabotaging things if they’re configured in a way Microsoft doesn’t like (e.g. AARD). Microsoft’s monopoly abuse has often been downright criminal, not merely abusive. This is why many people still dislike and distrust Microsoft.

Donald Trump, being the con man that he is, probably sees eye to eye and can relate to Microsoft. They have no moral leverage over one another and Bill Gates said or at least publicly insinuated he'd be willing to back Trump in 2020. Whatever makes him richer…

“Microsoft’s monopoly abuse has often been downright criminal, not merely abusive.”Gates isn’t a techie. He’s not educated as a techie and he never even graduated from college (where he studied law — something he became good at breaking). Gates is a politician. He acts like one; he is one. Trump reportedly offered Gates a job at his cabinet (top adviser) and Gates declined; he declined not because of Trump but because, according to him, it would not be good use of his time. Remember that Gates is not against Trump. He never was. Criminals in positions of power are less likely to enforce the law against other criminals (instead they focus on silencing if not arresting those who expose their crimes).

As a side note, earlier today I watched the whole film above (highlighted to me the other day because it had become freely accessible); its producer has a long track record of making films about issues strongly suppressed by the Western powers. I learned a lot from his films over the years and they partly shaped my views on world affairs. In the last few minutes of the film Pilger concludes and remarks on what Donald Trump is hoping to achieve. This is important and very relevant to the subject named below.

This brings us to a difficult subject because it is almost purely political (and we prefer to avoid ‘pure’ politics; they can distract from the underlying issues through partisan slant). It was all over the news yesterday and it will be in our next Daily Links. An associate of ours collated and picked the following excerpts:

  • Microsoft Said to Be Exploring TikTok Acquisition

    Reports in both The New York Times and Bloomberg confirmed an earlier Fox Business story that the Washington-based tech giant was in talks to buy TikTok, which with over 2 billion global downloads has become one of the fastest-growing social media platforms.

    Another scenario, first reported by The Information, would involve the U.S. investors in TikTok’s owner, ByteDance, acquiring the app.

  • Microsoft Said to Be in Talks to Buy TikTok, as Trump Weighs Curtailing App

    It’s unclear how advanced TikTok’s talks to sell itself to Microsoft and other companies are, but changing ownership is crucial for the app. The United States is one of TikTok’s major markets, so continued operations in the country are a priority.

    TikTok has discussed other scenarios to alleviate concerns by U.S. officials. In one scenario, non-Chinese investors like Sequoia Capital, SoftBank and General Atlantic could purchase a majority stake in the app from ByteDance, people familiar with the discussions have said.

  • Microsoft in talks to purchase TikTok: report

    The New York Times cited an anonymous source who said the purchase could come later in the day Friday. Microsoft did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment on the potential purchase.

  • TikTok Draws Interest From Bidders Other Than Microsoft

    Venture investors in ByteDance have approached Chief Executive Officer Zhang Yiming with a range of proposals to address U.S. concerns that the app, especially popular with teens, is a security threat, people familiar with the matter have said. Any solution would likely have to pass scrutiny from U.S. regulators in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, as well as U.S. antitrust regulators.

  • Microsoft Is in Talks to Buy TikTok in U.S.

    Spokespeople for Microsoft and TikTok declined to comment on any potential talks. The software company’s interest in the app was reported earlier by Fox Business Network.

  • Update: The TikTok Clusterfuck: Trump To Order A Block, Microsoft Wants To Buy, And Competition Is Still There

    Update: Sooo… we already have a bunch of updates on this story. Trump has said he’s banning TikTok entirely and is “against” allowing a US company to buy TikTok. Below is the original post, with only a slight clarification regarding Ben Thompson’s thoughts on TikTok, which I didn’t present very clearly in the original. Then, beneath the post I’ll have more thoughts on Trump’s comments.

This neatly relates to a subject we wrote about in the past, namely the Pentagon/”JEDI” contract, which seemed to us like a form of Microsoft bailout in ‘military’ clothing (as we note in our series about IBM, making one’s military dependent on your aging and even inferior technology makes you “too big [or essential] to fail/fall”).

“The purchase rumors for Tiktok are likely a distraction from Microsoft layoffs or similar bad news,” our associate noted this morning and Ryan cited two articles in IRC some hours ago [1, 2]. It was past midnight, so tomorrow’s IRC logs will include that. Long story short, this morning the Bill Gates-funded BBC reported on it and it’s as shallow as Microsoft wants it. There’s no discussion about the Microsoft-Trump relationship, the Microsoft layoffs (about 5,000 of them this summer), and ‘bailout’-like aspects, which merit discussion.

“Gates is a politician. He acts like one; he is one.”“Trump wants to give TikTok to Microsoft,” Ryan said. “Could explain why it [Microsoft] wasn’t at the “antitrust” grilling the other day.”

“One of the individuals confirmed Microsoft was in the lead to acquire the popular platform’s U.S. service,” Ryan quoted. “Another attempt to prop Microsoft up” is what he called it, adding that “Skype fell out of favor after they spent way too much money on it and now they’re working closely with the administration to get TikTok in a forced sale.”

“The “China” excuse doesn’t pass the sniff test,” Ryan said, “in my opinion. We know that Microsoft is a PRISM/Five Eyes collaborator, so handing it off to Microsoft would immediately make it much easier to spy on everyone who uses TikTok, whether they are in the US or not.”

“This neatly relates to a subject we wrote about in the past, namely the Pentagon/”JEDI” contract, which seemed to us like a form of Microsoft bailout in ‘military’ clothing…”Of course the media was totally hypocritical about privacy aspects of TikTok. Pretty much all of TikTok’s big competitors are in the surveillance business and are vastly worse than TikTok. The last article above (from TechDirt) is one of several that repeatedly highlight this very simple fact.

TikTok has been blasted by Trump and his sidekick Pompeo, who are of course happy to ignore all the surveillance that benefits themselves.

“PRISM pretty much makes your Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook accounts an NSA trap. Any low level analyst can punch in your account name and start copying over your files and email and stuff,” Ryan noted. “The fact that TikTok has lured a lot of fools into using it heavily means that the US government wants to control it so that it can put hooks into it. You wouldn’t just have to be crazy to put anything sensitive on any “service” like that. You’d have to be bonehead stupid.”

Quoting another article, Ryan spotted this: “Microsoft does not have a creative social media company to sow brand recognition with younger users, though the Redmond, Wash.-based company does own professional networking site LinkedIn.”

“TikTok has been blasted by Trump and his sidekick Pompeo, who are of course happy to ignore all the surveillance that benefits themselves.”Ryan responded: “Doesn’t mention anywhere that LinkedIn is falling apart and that Microsoft just sacked almost 1,000 people that were working there. Off to the next thing. People should recognize the Microsoft brand. It’s a warning sign. “Warning, company packed with pedophiles that makes shitty bloated software with government backdoors ahead. Run!”

“I can scarcely believe that Microsoft’s Fake Google has 27% of any market in search, much less the US. Everything they’ve done to “promote it”, like hijacking your Windows 10 defaults and “search bribery” (“Hey kid, want some XBOX Gold and Rick Jones?”) has failed. I can think of various reasons Microsoft wants TikTok. None of them good. The article keeps repeating that Microsoft wants “Young users.” Just over and over again. Probably wants to incorporate their faces into the databanks that it sells to the police and Trump’s unmarked van thugs. Lots of bad things. Probably the most naked reason is another platform for their advertising though. The police keep complaining that the facial recognition software they use or tap into (Ring and such) doesn’t know how to tell one black person from another, and then also says they regularly use it as evidence in court. How does that work? Right?”

“Recall what we wrote about the “JEDI” contract; the award came under investigation and the investigators could not rule out foul play by Microsoft and Trump.”MinceR then asked Ryan, “are they paying twitler [Trump] for this or is it just out of the evilness of his heart?”

Recall what we wrote about the “JEDI” contract; the award came under investigation and the investigators could not rule out foul play by Microsoft and Trump.

“With Trump and corruption, ” Ryan responded, “it’s like the Joker said. When you’re good at something, never do it for free.”


Microsoft Abusing Monopoly Position Again

Posted in Antitrust, Microsoft at 3:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“…[Windows 98] must be a killer on shipments so that Netscape never gets a chance…”

Former Microsoft Vice President James Allchin in an internal memo

Tell me what's worse than proprietary software that spies on whole businesses; Microsoft's proprietary software that spies on whole businesses

Summary: “Microsoft has illegally tied its Teams product into its market-dominant Office productivity suite, force installing it for millions, blocking its removal, and hiding the true cost to enterprise customers,” according to Slack

  • Slack says Microsoft is up to its old tricks, “browser-war” style

    Slack—the now-nearly ubiquitous, purple work-chatting platform—has filed a formal complaint alleging that tech titan Microsoft is unlawfully abusing its power to squeeze newer rivals out of the market—almost the exact same accusations Microsoft infamously faced 20 years ago.

    San Francisco-based Slack filed a complaint with the European Commission detailing “Microsoft’s illegal and anti-competitive practice of abusing its market dominance to extinguish competition in breach of European Union competition law,” the company said today.

  • Slack files competition complaint against Microsoft in Europe

    Workplace messaging service Slack announced Wednesday it has filed a complaint against Microsoft with the European Commission on Wednesday, alleging the tech giant is using its market dominance to crowd out competition.

    The complaint accuses Microsoft of illegally tying its workplace product, Teams, to its suite of productivity tools, forcing millions of installs and hiding the true costs from enterprise customers.

  • Slack files EU antitrust complaint against Microsoft, cites anti-competitive Teams bundling

    Slack has filed a complaint with the European Commission that accuses Microsoft of unfairly bundling its Teams collaboration app with its Office 365 suite. That move, Slack argues, allows Microsoft to abuse its market dominance to “extinguish competition in breach of European Union competition law.

    “Microsoft has illegally tied its Teams product into its market-dominant Office productivity suite, force installing it for millions, blocking its removal, and hiding the true cost to enterprise customers,” Slack said.


Microsoft as a Monopoly

Posted in Antitrust, Microsoft at 6:55 pm by Guest Editorial Team

(Re)Published with permission from Mitchel Lewis, former Microsoft employee (“Is Microsoft a Monopoly?”)

Microsoft monopoly

Summary: “Instead and since Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior is so blatantly obvious, it is my opinion that discourse should focus on how and why they are still allowed to operate so flagrantly in this day and age.”

With new anti-trust charges looming for Google, references to Microsoft’s anti-competitive past are quite common in the news cycle at the moment. Although it is still debated endlessly, the question of whether or not Microsoft is still a monopoly isn’t a question of substance in my opinion. I say this not to be dismissive or rude, but simply due to the fact that Microsoft is most definitely a monopoly both from the perspective of their dominant market share in the OS (77%) and office software (42%) markets and from the legal perspective as evidenced by their litany of anti-trust violations and subsequent fines that they’ve incurred globally for being a bona fide monopoly. But not all monopolies are evil, let alone illegal.

Microsoft chart

Some monopolies are ethical and perfectly legal because they obtain their market share by virtue of the utility of their products, the quality of their engineering, and the level of efficiency that they can deliver all of this with; simply being the best if you will. For example, Google has an ethical monopoly on search, mobile OS, and productivity now because no one else does a better job for less. Another example is Apple which has an ethical monopoly in phone and high end hardware spaces by virtue of making the best devices sans their most recent keyboard and antenna debacles.

Other monopolies such as your dad’s Microsoft were evil because their products could not compete on a competitive plane with emerging vendors and open source projects alike and had to resort to anti-competitive, subversive, and illegal means to maintain relevance. Where they could not innovate and dominate naturally, Microsoft became notorious for inhibiting their competition from running on their platform or mimicking them until they have to take a comedic write-down when acquisition was not possible. Microsoft was so notorious for acting like a law firm with a software problem that Bill Gates is still seen by many in the open source community as a tycoon due to how he mistreated people and industry alike while at the helm of Microsoft despite extensive philanthropic ventures.

As such and rather than focusing on whether Microsoft is a monopoly, the question of whether or not Microsoft maintains an ethical monopoly or an anti-competitive monopoly is much more prudent and up for debate in my opinion. So, is Microsoft the anti-competitive type of monopoly that they have historically been or has it evolved into an ethical monopoly whose products naturally warrant their dominant presence in various markets?

At first glance, Microsoft looks like an entirely different company than it did in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. They have Satya Nadella, a new super-woke CEO running the show now. They also have an authoritative cloud presence, especially in the office productivity market. They finally have the Surface as a hardware platform now. Microsoft is even a member of OIN while integrating Linux with Windows and is even writing more applications for Linux as we speak. While this is most definitely no longer your father’s Microsoft, it becomes evident upon further inspection that old habits are still dying hard there and that the systemic change purported by them may not be as substantial as they would like you to believe.

For example and Just as society advances at the rate of one funeral at a time, corporations tend to advance at the rate of one retirement at a time and we would have to see a dramatic shift throughout their ranks; especially their executives. Instead one can find the opposite of this happening when looking at Microsoft’s highest ranks. For example and even though Satya Nadella is their new CEO, he’s been with the company for 28 years. As part of Microsoft’s old guard, he was complicit in the behavior that Microsoft became notorious for and is by no means an injection of new insight and talent into the company.

Microsoft people

But Nadella isn’t alone in this regard. With an average age of 51 and tenure of 20 years, Microsoft also depends on many of the same executives, managers, and employees that they counted on during their anti-trust days and Satya is in great company in this regard. On average, executives started at Microsoft in 1999 during the peak of their anti-trust trial with the US, clearly seeing no moral objection with their behavior at the time. Had they have spoken up about such ethical misgivings to Microsoft at the time, they most certainly would have been ran out of the company, if not the industry.

That said, keeping the same employees and execs around that maintained an evil monopoly doesn’t exactly favor the ethical monopoly argument. Certainly, their executives could have had a change of heart, but if the republican party has taught us nothing is that changes of heart become rare as we age. With an average age of 51 among its executives, their leadership isn’t exactly predisposed to being open-minded or receptive to change and it would be irrational to assume that all of them changed their moral framework and moved away from tactics that made them billions with little to no consequence. Usually, people have to lose everything in order for such behavioral changes to occur while being rewarded for such behavior obviously has the opposite effect.

Another notable hallmark of evil monopolies is that they eventually become guided almost exclusively by their legal team while their executives function mostly as their mouthpiece instead; a figurehead or puppet if you will. To no surprise, Nadella can often be found reading what is prepared for him by the same lawyers and PR people that Microsoft has always had, preparing for curtailed interviews well in advance while avoiding informal ones with the same fervor, and has so much plausible deniability baked into his role that he can’t even read his own email. All of which are consistent with a CEO being more of a figurehead than an actual decision maker or source of leadership.

Further and with the influence of corporate legal teams in mind, we would also have to see significant movement among the ranks of their internal and external council in order to justify the type of systemic change that Microsoft is purporting. But rather than changing their legal team from a crack team specializing in beating back anti-trust allegations around the world, Microsoft kept many of the same lawyers on their payroll that bailed them out of their anti-trust woes both domestically and abroad. They even promoted Brad Smith, the Jose Baez of anti-trust, to the president role of the company.

Meanwhile, Microsoft still continues to retain Bill Gates Sr.’s firm KL Gates firm which represents other wholesome companies such as Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, Blackwater, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo among others. That said, it simply doesn’t make sense to keep such people and firms around unless you’re behaving the same way that necessitated them in the first place.

On top of needing a new wave of non-figurehead executives, employees, and lawyers to justify the amount of change that Microsoft is purporting though, they would also need entirely new products as well. Despite what Microsoft’s creative financial reporting may have you believe, it is still dependent on the same old software offerings that it has always been dependent on; Windows, Office, and Server. Ironically, Microsoft hasn’t actually replaced the products that got them in trouble for having to shoehorn into position in the first place. Sure, they have cloud solutions now, but these are merely a new means to the same old Microsoft end and could not stand on their own without being attached to their same old legacy solutions.

In turn, these same products also exist as case studies for the market phenomenon known as lock-in where products become so entrenched in an organization that they become too expensive to migrate to better solutions just as they always have. Functioning more like a glass ceiling, Windows and Office products masterfully entrench themselves throughout organizations despite objectively better and more cost-effective solutions existing under most circumstances.

Ironically, there are few if any objective measures that would predict Microsoft products to exist as clear front-runners in any major market. But rather than building better products, they have chosen to dope them up by optimizing them for lock-in so to prevent customers from leaving their platforms at the expense of utility. As cursory as this may seem, it should be called out that Microsoft even encourages their partners to deploy their products in a sticky manner specifically for the purposes of further entrenching solutions and inflating switching costs and I’m that not saying anything that they haven’t said themselves.

Although engineering products for lock-in isn’t illegal as of yet, Microsoft is notorious among those who study IT finance and lock-in practices as it’s impossible to foster such a dynamic by accident. That said, having to resort to these tactics isn’t exactly a sign of maintaining an ethical monopoly. In fact, such tactics are anti-correlated with an ethical monopoly and no one can optimize products for lock-in and utility simultaneously because of this.

To no surprise, the same products also require the same partner network to prop them up and install them throughout industry. Since Microsoft products can’t run on merit and have to resort to lock-in tactics in many instances, Microsoft instead offers the greatest returns in the industry to ensure that their network of partner consultants give their products undue priority during the decision making process, creating a conflict of interest among IT professionals.

Since Microsoft products also tend to generate the greatest amount of ownership costs over the lifetime of their products, they are also the most profitable ecosystem for consultants to offer management and support solutions for. Although Microsoft only generates 150 billion or whatever a year in revenue, their products create a multi-trillion dollar maintenance and support burden spanning all of industry throughout the world which is eclipsed by the collective productivity loss incurred from using their products in the first place. In turn, this market is serviced primarily by Microsoft partners, underfunded and change averse sys admins, managed services providers and consultants, who often benefit from the job security, initial commission and residual income from long-term support, and management contracts spanning the product lifecycle with their clients and employers.

Besides losing margin to a partner network and generating an undue strain on industry as a whole amounting to trillions of dollars, another drawback to optimizing products for lock-in is that they don’t fare so well in free markets that favor quality and value that are beyond the influence of their partner network. You can’t just tell all of your employees to engineer products for lock-in that suck; engineers won’t do that. Instead, they have to be structured in a manner to artificially limit quality and foster lock-in while obtaining their best work from them; like an operational ruse, many engineers are blind to these objectives.

Because Microsoft can’t just turn this tendency off like a light or a feature, there are countless examples of their attempts at innovation floundering miserably in free markets as a result. To name a few though, Windows Phone, Health Band, retail stores, Mixer, and the looming failure of Hololens and Surface come to mind.

Microsoft bar chart

One last consequence of engineering a money machine in such a manner is that as products become more defective, consequently less desirable, and prone to lock-in they also become incredibly expensive to market than they would otherwise be. To no surprise, Microsoft spends more on marketing and sales than R&D by a rather large margin, $18.2 billion compared to $16.9 billion, reducing them to more of a marketing firm with a software problem when measured by their expenditures.

Another habit of evil monopolies is that they also tend to acquire new products rather than innovating internally. Try as they might, monopolies just don’t innovate well and they have to make constant acquisitions in order to grow; kind of like the borg. However, not all acquisitions can be winners and there will also be a steady stream of writedowns from failed acquisitions. While Microsoft has had many solid acquisitions, they also have a lot of questionable ones on their plate which is inline with this behavior. In fact, Microsoft’s dependence on acquisitions is why investors and media make such big deals out of Microsoft’s various write-downs over the years while giving them a pass on their lack of innovation as it’s hardly part of their business model.

In summary, Microsoft has indeed changed over the past few decades. But in a world where you can never step foot in the same river twice, even a stagnating company can make a completely rational claim towards change. When also considering that Microsoft still has many of the same executives, employees, lawyers, PR people, products, engineering practices, marketing over-dependence, and distribution channels in place that made them the ruthless money machine that they have become notorious for being though, it’s difficult to see how any of this has enabled them to move away from functioning as an anti-competitive monopoly to functioning as an ethical monopoly. Combined with their clear lack of innovation, consequent over-dependence on acquisitions and lock-in practices, and countless blunders in free markets, it becomes painfully obvious that Microsoft is still an anti-competitive monopoly to this day.

Instead and since Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior is so blatantly obvious, it is my opinion that discourse should focus on how and why they are still allowed to operate so flagrantly in this day and age. One might suggest that if Microsoft were indeed an anti-competitive monopoly that we could depend on the SEC and DOJ to keep them in check. But countless monopolies and the lawlessness associated with them have sprung up under their watchful eye in other industries; wall street, big pharmaceuticals, big banks, big agriculture, and big energy to name a few. That said, suggesting regulatory competence outside of the realm of theatrics is just as laughable as suggesting that Microsoft isn’t a monopoly or that menial fines will curb anti-competitive behavior that results in hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenue. But I digress and this is ultimately a discussion for another day.


[Humour/Meme] The ‘New’ Edge (Chrome Copycat) is Already Dead, So Microsoft is Trying to Just Kill the Competition

Posted in Antitrust, Deception, Google, Microsoft at 8:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Picard View Screen: Captain, Edge has an update, I don't use Edge, Nobody out there uses Edge, Holy shit, look at that market share!

2020 browser share

Summary: Edge market share is so minuscule that it doesn’t even make it into this chart (it’s in “other”); no wonder Microsoft now bullies Windows users into using it, for users reject it even after months of endless advertising/AstroTurfing and aggressive exploitation/appropriation


Monopoly Abuse, Still: Microsoft Pays Projects to Embrace/Move to C#, GitHub and Visual Studio

Posted in Antitrust, Microsoft at 9:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Nothing has changed at Microsoft except the PR, the sugar-coated layoffs, and the framing of bribes


Summary: Microsoft’s greatest of efforts to lull regulators into inaction and fool us all into thinking that things have changed are undone by actual behaviour, which is abusive, anti-competitive and just… typical Microsoft

THE same old Microsoft — the one we all know — has not changed. Earlier today we saw Godot’s latest article about “C# progress report” — an article that talks about “Visual Studio and VSCode” (pretty much the same thing; the latter is the openwashing ploy).

“Having leveraged other people’s code for a proprietary Web browser that lets Microsoft spy on Web users, it now adds another layer of malice to it.”It says upfront: “This work was kindly sponsored by Microsoft.” So Godot is paid by Microsoft now, but only to serve Microsoft’s agenda. No wonder it outsourced the code to GitHub and is now working to enhance Microsoft’s proprietary software with surveillance (telemetry is their euphemism of choice) embedded in it. Some of these projects, Qt included, are going in the wrong direction. They’re wrongly assuming that the world will forever stay imprisoned by the monopoly and therefore they make a strategic alliance with this monopoly. Look closely enough and you’ll always find that Microsoft pays them to do it; they sell out.

Speaking of monopoly and abuse thereof, Microsoft is being incredibly malicious again. Having leveraged other people’s code for a proprietary Web browser that lets Microsoft engage in cyber-espionage (it spy on Web users, logs keystrokes etc.), it now adds another layer of malice to it. Did anyone not see this coming? SlashGear called it “nagware” [1] and the earlier (The Verge) article that everyone seems to link to says “Microsoft’s forced Windows updates just sank to a new low” (prior headline was “Microsoft is forcing Edge on Windows users with a spyware-like install”). [2]

“Edge is really getting nasty with people who want to use another browser,” Ryan explained in our IRC channels. “It just won’t take no for an answer. It’s basically like a rapist.”

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Microsoft Edge has reportedly come close to being intrusive nagware
  2. With Edge, Microsoft’s forced Windows updates just sank to a new low

    If I told you that my entire computer screen just got taken over by a new app that I’d never installed or asked for — it just magically appeared on my desktop, my taskbar, and preempted my next website launch — you’d probably tell me to run a virus scanner and stay away from shady websites, no?

    But the insanely intrusive app I’m talking about isn’t a piece of ransomware. It’s Microsoft’s new Chromium Edge browser, which the company is now force-feeding users via an automatic update to Windows.

    Seriously, when I restarted my Windows 10 desktop this week, an app I’d never asked for…


[Humour] Things You Can’t Say on Reddit

Posted in Antitrust, Microsoft at 9:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Context: Detecting and Undoing/Reversing Censorship of Microsoft Critics at Reddit

Bill Murray: Microsoft says it 'supports' Rust, You don't suppose they try to take control of it, aaaaand I'm banned

Summary: Reddit is to free speech and freedom of expression what Microsoft is to ethics


Quit Calling Bill Gates a Liberal

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Finance, Microsoft at 10:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

He gives nothing away, not even tax money (the so-called ‘charity’, Gates Foundation, is an astonishingly shrewd for-profit investment vehicle that helps Bill dodge taxes and shape the narrative/agenda)

Mean Girls: He keeps saying he gives his money away; Yeah, that's why he triples his wealth

Summary: Money and greed know no “wings” and political loyalties based upon ideological orientation; in a two-party system, moreover, the rich will always get a lot richer (and fast!) because they play parties off against each other

THE term “Liberal” or “Liberalism” does not mean in the US what it means in most other countries; moreover, the meaning of “Liberal” changed over time and now we have terms like Neo-Liberal, which is altogether different. Libertarianism is another thing altogether and the notion of liberty is so widely abused that Donald Trump calls a bunch of armed lunatics “liberators”; many still call troops who invade other countries (for oil companies or so-called ‘democracy’) “liberators”.

If Mr. Gates and his wife are “Liberals,” which they’re not, what liberty are they celebrating? Exemption from tax? Liberalism/liberty from regulation? As in… deregulation?

“Considering the Gates family’s past with race issues (trying to whiten and ‘purify’ the population), Mr. Gates is about as tolerant as Donald Trump. He’s just hiding it better.”So-called ‘Conservatives’ in the US aren’t much different from the fake ‘left’ that’s just oligarchs masking themselves as tolerant (focusing on race, not class). There’s this stigma associated with tech companies, saying they’re all “leftist” or “liberal”. Watch their actions though! They support war. They support oppression. They profit from human suffering. What part of all this is actually “Liberal” or “liberal”? What the heck does that label even mean?

People who call the Gates family “Liberals” are obviously clueless as to how the ruling class (or plutocracy, or magnates, or oligarchy) thinks and operates. They hardly even care for such labels. To them, it’s just “us” and “them”, as in us the “champions of the world” and them the peasants, the ignorant masses whom we tell that we deserve that massive wealth because of our “hard work” (not privilege, not other people’s hard and underpaid-for work).

Considering the Gates family’s past with race issues (trying to whiten and ‘purify’ the population), Mr. Gates is about as tolerant as Donald Trump. He’s just hiding it better.


[Humour] Microsoft’s Jokers Tell Us They Love Linux…

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Quote at 6:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Two Jokers: What we are trying to do is use our server control to do new protocols and lock out Sun and Oracle specifically - Bill Gates

Summary: Humour? Maybe. But those are all genuine, authentic quotes from inside Microsoft’s leadership (speaking of “Linux” as though it’s a cockroach and Windows a drug).

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts