Re: Oligopolies are hard to regulate
Was that code ever active, or as Wikipedia says "Microsoft disabled the AARD code for the final release of Windows 3.1," - so the code was there but never active? Very idiotic and anti-competitive move, sure, but even they found it was a bridge too far. Keeping them as a "nuclear options" was idiotic as well.
But can you even install a different OS on iPhones/iPads?
I never said MS was a nice company. I was using Borland tools and MS did its best to kill Borland (Borland was helpful in firing in its feet too - dBase, anyone?) - so I never was a MS fanboy. Still I could sell a lot of Windows applications that was never developed with MS tools, and for which MS didn't see a dime from me.
I just said it never went to the extreme lock-in Apple does. Moreover MS had to resort to shady, illegal tactics that when found would just put it in bad waters. Apple strives for legally binding ways to cage developers and users into its walled garden and extract as much money from them as it can.
Actually, looking at Apple, MS was stupid to try that trick. Using the Apple way it should have said transparently that Win 3.1 could only run on MS-DOS and actively enforce it through code signing. For security reasons, of course.... same for Office application - just assert you can install any Office suite as long as it is MS Office, just like Apple does with Safari. Ask for a yearly fee from developers, and force all applications to be signed by MS to run on Windows....
Biting the hand that feeds IT
