Summary: Microsoft's destructive effects explained by people who know better than PR

Here are four new posts of interest from four different individuals who are generally critical of Microsoft for different reasons:

John Bennett: IP hasn't hurt innovation in computer software

Similarly, competitor Linux is just as happy to have MS keep its prices high as that leaves more room in the market for its free software. This view is probably shared by the highest priced rival, Apple; though it is not mentioned in the article, it can charge a lot more as long as MS doesn't drop its prices too much.

No mention is made of Google Chrome either, I assume because its operating system does not compete head to head with MS's PC products, but that is coming in the future. It is doing quite well operating in the cloud and in other non-computer applications like cell phones. Indeed, innovation and gadgets at least raise a question about the future of the PC.

The bottom line, not drawn in the article, but which can be inferred, relates to how the industry will evolve. At this point, it appears unlikely that any other large software maker will emerge with a competitive operating system, unless it is compatible with Windows and works on the PC. There isn't room in the market place for more.

Bradford White: Just Stop It, Microsoft

We all know that Microsoft doesn't like people messing with their stuff. For example, Microsoft really hates the amount of piracy that surrounds Windows and Office. The company frequently releases updates that make piracy of those products harder and harder. This is completely legal considering that only Microsoft owns Windows and Office. You pay about 300.00USD to have MS Office and MS Windows, and those would be introductory versions of each. Now, apparently, the company wishes to control things even more.

[...]

I was attracted to the open source movement simply because I wanted to be the person calling the shots on my computers. I could care less about RMS and his views on FOSS. I simply hated the idea that I wasn't legally permitted to make changes to the software running on MY computer. Apparently, Microsoft thinks that you ought not be allowed to repurpose your hardware either, or modify your software, or repurpose software, or reverse engineer software, or anything else. Where does it stop? Where do people draw the line? If you go out and purchase a license to Microsoft Windows or Office, you have to agree to the EULA.

Or as Pogson puts it: USA: Cannot Compete. Doesn’t Even Try.

The USA has ignored anti-competitive acts by M$ to force retailers and OEMs to supply mostly M$’s products to the great cost of the world in malware and licensing fees. When the USA did notice egregious acts by M$ they never required a remedy but condoned the acts. Further, as M$ bullied businesses large and small and even governments, the USA did nothing. The USA has intervened repeatedly when M$ was called to task by other governments. The USA has allowed M$ to kill competition within the USA and now the USA has lost the benefit of competition as motivation to produce better products.

Alastair Otter, typically a critic of Microsoft and staunch advocate of software freedom in his country, writes about Vista 8, inadvertently helping Microsoft by bringing vapourware into public consciousness. ⬆

"Stewart Alsop, industry gadfly, presented Gates with the "Golden Vaporware" award, saying, "The delay of Windows was all part of a secret plan to have Bill turn thirty before it shipped."

--Barbarians Led by Bill Gates, a book composed
by the daughter of Microsoft's PR mogul