Former Microsoft VP on "Microsoft's Creative Destruction"
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Feb 2010 20:48 UTC
Microsoft Now this is something you don't read every day. Dick Brass, vice president at Microsoft from 1997 to 2004, has written an article for The New York Times' Op-Ed section, detailing the flaws in Microsoft's corporate culture, and how they've severely affected the company in a negative way. Telling, and painful. And, in a way, very sad. Update: Microsoft responds. "For Microsoft, it is not sufficient to simply have a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea. We measure our work by its broad impact."
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 95 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/hm8
Thread beginning with comment 407969
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FurryOne
Member since:
2006-01-23

Tell that to Stac, or any of the other Companies that found their code inside Microsoft's programs.


There was no allegation of direct appropriation of code with Stac.

You might have been born yesterday, but I wasn't. I watched it unfold, and reports specifically stated that Stac found their code (including comments) inside Double-Space. Just because Wikipedia says something doesn't change history.

Tell it to people that ran OS/2, or BeOS, that MS crushed with their Monopoly power.


I ran OS/2 and loved it, but I can't blame Microsoft for its demise.

Another BS story. Microsoft threatened to withdraw advertising $ to any company that even displayed the OS/2 logo in their ad. They also, as a last straw, withheld W'95 licensing from IBM right up to the day before launch until IBM agreed to de-emphasize OS/2. As for BeOS - MS threatened Hitachi with canceling their contracts if they loaded BeOS on any machines

And tell it to Novell & Digital Research, and on and on and on...


If you're referring to the DR-DOS & Windows 3.1 thing, note that all released versions of Windows 3.1 worked fine with DR-DOS.

Wow, I guess all that fuss over the betas of Windows that "warned about incompatibilities" when they saw DRDos instead of MSDos had nothing to do with it, eh?

Microsoft has a terrible reputation for anticompetitive practices, but I've never actually seen them in this company.

I've never seen anyone here be 'evil', ever.

Hear no evil, see no evil.

Their latest trick was to stuff the International Standards Groups with their flunky partners to get their "non-standard" listed as a standard.


I honestly don't know any more on this than anyone else on OSnews. I don't work in Office.

Try Groklaw.

However, it doesn't seem strange to me that MS was not about to adopt a file format controlled by its competitors (ODF).

ODF is an Open Standard - unlike MS's cryptic, 65K page submission.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Try Groklaw.


*cough*

Reply Parent Score: 2

malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

There was no allegation of direct appropriation of code with Stac.

You might have been born yesterday, but I wasn't. I watched it unfold, and reports specifically stated that Stac found their code (including comments) inside Double-Space. Just because Wikipedia says something doesn't change history.

I assure you I am no spring chicken. If an allegation of copyright infringement was made, it wasn't from Stac; here's their complaint:

http://vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
Microsoft threatened to withdraw advertising $ to any company that even displayed the OS/2 logo in their ad.

Should MS pay for competing ads?
They also, as a last straw, withheld W'95 licensing from IBM right up to the day before launch until IBM agreed to de-emphasize OS/2.

I wasn't there and can't speak to detail. But I would note that one high-profile case recently established that another OS vendor was under no compulsion to license their OS to any OEM under any conditions at all. Superficially, it seems to me that a company licensing its OS to a range of hardware vendors is more pro-competitive than a company which acts to fix the number of hardware vendors at exactly one.
Wow, I guess all that fuss over the betas of Windows that "warned about incompatibilities" when they saw DRDos instead of MSDos had nothing to do with it, eh?

Betas have problems, sometimes documented limitations. It didn't ship that way.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

So your contention is that MS is pro-competitive because another company delivers even more closed products? Isn't that the same spin as saying "MS is anti-competitive because another organization exists which operates with transparency and offers all it's products at no cost"?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >
FurryOne Member since:
2006-01-23

I assure you I am no spring chicken. If an allegation of copyright infringement was made, it wasn't from Stac; here's their complaint:


I've read their official complaint. I was also around to read the news that broke when they actually found their code in there. Just because the complaint doesn't say it verbatim...

Microsoft threatened to withdraw advertising $ to any company that even displayed the OS/2 logo in their ad.
Should MS pay for competing ads?


Let me clarify that - MS threatened vendors with loss of matching revenue if the "Made for OS/2" logo appeared in the same ad as the "Windows" logo did. So vendors dropped mention of OS/2 in their ads even when they still supported it.

They also, as a last straw, withheld W'95 licensing from IBM right up to the day before launch until IBM agreed to de-emphasize OS/2.

I wasn't there and can't speak to detail.


The man at the business end of OS/2 was, and that's what he said.

But I would note that one high-profile case recently established that another OS vendor was under no compulsion to license their OS to any OEM under any conditions at all.


It borders on "extortion". I noticed you didn't mention BeOS... maybe because MS was found guilty, because Be pursued the issue.

Wow, I guess all that fuss over the betas of Windows that "warned about incompatibilities" when they saw DRDos instead of MSDos had nothing to do with it, eh?
Betas have problems, sometimes documented limitations. It didn't ship that way.


It didn't ship that way because MS didn't want to get sued over it, and the damage required (to DRDos) was already accomplished.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Tell that to Stac, or any of the other Companies that found their code inside Microsoft's programs.

There was no allegation of direct appropriation of code with Stac.

You might have been born yesterday, but I wasn't. I watched it unfold, and reports specifically stated that Stac found their code (including comments) inside Double-Space. Just because Wikipedia says something doesn't change history.

Tell it to people that ran OS/2, or BeOS, that MS crushed with their Monopoly power.

I ran OS/2 and loved it, but I can't blame Microsoft for its demise.

Another BS story. Microsoft threatened to withdraw advertising $ to any company that even displayed the OS/2 logo in their ad. They also, as a last straw, withheld W'95 licensing from IBM right up to the day before launch until IBM agreed to de-emphasize OS/2. As for BeOS - MS threatened Hitachi with canceling their contracts if they loaded BeOS on any machines

And tell it to Novell & Digital Research, and on and on and on...

If you're referring to the DR-DOS & Windows 3.1 thing, note that all released versions of Windows 3.1 worked fine with DR-DOS.

Wow, I guess all that fuss over the betas of Windows that "warned about incompatibilities" when they saw DRDos instead of MSDos had nothing to do with it, eh?

Microsoft has a terrible reputation for anticompetitive practices, but I've never actually seen them in this company.

I've never seen anyone here be 'evil', ever.

Hear no evil, see no evil.

Their latest trick was to stuff the International Standards Groups with their flunky partners to get their "non-standard" listed as a standard.

I honestly don't know any more on this than anyone else on OSnews. I don't work in Office.

Try Groklaw.

However, it doesn't seem strange to me that MS was not about to adopt a file format controlled by its competitors (ODF).

ODF is an Open Standard - unlike MS's cryptic, 65K page submission.


QFT - something MS fanbois don't like. Every word is true, no matter how much the MS shills try to rewrite history.

EDIT: Edited for formatting

Edited 2010-02-05 22:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Every word is true, no matter how much the MS shills try to rewrite history.


There it is.

I was actually waiting for this. Congratulations.

Go back to Groklaw or Boycott Novell or whatever place you came from.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Another BS story. Microsoft threatened to withdraw advertising $ to any company that even displayed the OS/2 logo in their ad. They also, as a last straw, withheld W'95 licensing from IBM right up to the day before launch until IBM agreed to de-emphasize OS/2. As for BeOS - MS threatened Hitachi with canceling their contracts if they loaded BeOS on any machines


IBM had tough competition from Microsoft but they were ultimately responsible for the failure of OS2. I was an OS2 user and loved it but the price was high and so were the hardware requirements. Even though Windows was buggier it was also a lot cheaper. The weird part was when OS2 was clearly in trouble IBM insisted upon keeping the price high. Instead of providing a cheap consumer version they decided to focus on servers and yet again keep the price high compared to Microsoft's offering. They completely refused to using the same strategy of Microsoft which was to sell cheap in order to build an install base. It was if they thought they were above making an affordable product. They could have also given it out for free before canning the entire project.

Edited 2010-02-05 23:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

FurryOne Member since:
2006-01-23

IBM had tough competition from Microsoft but they were ultimately responsible for the failure of OS2.


OS/2 failed due to lack of apps - due to Developers who were forced to choose between MS and IBM, and MS had more $$ for them.

I was an OS2 user and loved it but the price was high and so were the hardware requirements. Even though Windows was buggier it was also a lot cheaper. The weird part was when OS2 was clearly in trouble IBM insisted upon keeping the price high.


As in NOT FREE? I had every version from 1.1, and all the betas and all the TCPIP betas. OS/2 was cheap compared to the hardware of the day.

Instead of providing a cheap consumer version they decided to focus on servers and yet again keep the price high compared to Microsoft's offering. They completely refused to using the same strategy of Microsoft which was to sell cheap in order to build an install base. It was if they thought they were above making an affordable product. They could have also given it out for free before canning the entire project.


If you bought a PS/2, they DID give it to you for free. You seem to be confused about something - there was a license fee to MS for every copy of OS/2 IBM "sold". Show me where MS gave away Windows if you DIDN'T get it with a computer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >