Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Feb 2010 22:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 409223
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-06
How, exactly, is that evil? Google has a near-monopoly in search. The market would benefit from increased competition, even if that competition is promoted by buying market share. Ultimately, everyone benefits from increased competition -- not less -- so your assertion is bogus.
Priest, meet competition. Competition, Priest. Look, it's simple. Microsoft has to add value with subsequent products, or customers won't buy its products. Given that Microsoft has continued to add value in each of the successive releases of Office -- Ribbon is a far better experience than previous releases -- you can't argue that this hasn't benefited customers. Certainly, it has made competitors' lives more difficult, but WTF cares about the ease of competitors' lives? I'm more interested in the benefit to customers.