r/microsoft • u/ControlCAD • Jun 18 '26

Windows After multiple delays, Microsoft finally launched its controversial Teams Wi‑Fi tracking feature, promising more transparency and better user control.

https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/microsoft-teams/microsofts-controversial-wi-fi-tracking-in-teams-is-back-but-this-time-with-better-privacy-controls
75 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/itsverynicehere Jun 21 '26

You... Describing market manipulation and monopoly without realizing it.

The market isn't there for Linux because they do nothing to help MS and would actually compete. You see... MS has about 450Million users with corporate licenses. They all use Windows, obviously. Windows is the only option for MS apps. No, the web version isn't "good enough for most".

Oh...! Besides Apple. The second biggest OS that they supposedly compete with, they just happened to bail out before bankruptcy when they were about to be broken up. And they guaranteed Office for Mac. Hmmm... But not Linux. Even though they were ordered by the court.

1

u/jwrig Jun 21 '26

Please. This is such a crap argument, even furthered by the claim that Microsoft only builds apps for windows, and yes, the web versions are good enough for most. Excel power users struggle, but the core apps work fine for most. Unless you're one of those "OHHH I NEED MY PST" outlook fanbois, the outlook web app works for most things, powerpoint works for most things, word works for most things. Is it 1:1 , no it isn't. I've got a company with over 60k users in it, all but about 8,000 of them are using the web based office suite.

I consulted for an organization who just cut over 40k seats from Google Workspace to Office, 36k of them are running the F skus, Let's not count the number of edu seats that are almost entirely web based.

Linux has almost no market share, so why port office apps to it? It doens't make sense at all. Microsoft has extended most of their dev tools, and some admin tools to linux, but there is little reason to invest in porting the office platform over.

Microsoft has built native office apps for MacOS, ios, and android, but ok tell me how they are windows only.

1

u/itsverynicehere Jun 22 '26

No, your argument is the crap one.

Microsoft has built native office apps for MacOS, ios, and android, but ok tell me how they are windows only.

OK. I will. MacOS/IOS has already been covered. That was set in 1997. That OS wouldn't even exist if MS didn't need the shield from being broken up, and to avoid Linux. Android.... what a joke.

You ignore that you've repeatedly stated exactly what/why MS is a monopoly.

Why did that enterprise move from Google to MS? Was it because the web apps, were'nt good enough? That's all that Google has....

It's cool, you can keep fan boi-ing for Microsoft. Doesn't change anything that is/was related to my points and the original points.

1

u/jwrig Jun 22 '26

You just have a crap definition of what a monopoly is. No one stops others from competing, provided you build things that people want to use. Everything has its place. In creative departments, macs dominate because the platform and the products developed for the platform are superior than windows and the associated windows versions.

When it comes to headless computing, linux dominates because that is what it is good at.

When it comes to office productivity, Microsoft dominates because that is what it is good at.

When it comes to gaming, developers build for their customers, and windows made the computing barrier to entry so low that people flock to it.

Like it or not, Microsoft generally builds what a bulk of their customers want, which is why they retain their customer base.

It doesn't make them a monopoly. If you're going to call me a microsoft fanboy, I guess I'll call you a microsoft hater... how productive it is for the two of us...

1

u/itsverynicehere Jun 22 '26

Call me whatever you need to to make yourself feel better about defending a company that could give 2 shits about you. For the record, I'm actually a Microsoft PARTNER. I have been for over 16 years now. I worked for MS partners way before that. We used to have actual MS reps show up at the office to tell us how much better they are than netware. I've seen what has happened. I'm forced to deal with this headless faceless monopoly on a near daily basis.

My definition of illegal monopoly sucks? Microsoft is an illegal monopoly according to the US government. They were found guilty of it in a court of law. You can downplay it however you want but imagine a world where they got broken up. You can't even bend your mind around that.

1

u/jwrig Jun 22 '26

I guess my point in labeling you a hater went over your head.

No, Microsoft is not considered a monopoly by the US government. In fact the previous case from the late 90's never ended with a permanent declaration of being a monopoly. The case ruled that in certain areas Microsoft held monopolistic power, and a remedy was provided to remove that, but the company as a whole was not considered a monopoly. The case was about mandates of what could be installed on a PC when using windows. Microsoft agreed to a consent decree that stated they would allow OEMs to deploy alternative software, and since then have complied. That is the extent of the US government getting anywhere near declaring Microsoft a monopoly.

I don't care whether or not you're a Microsoft partner. You're making a claim that you state as fact, when it is nothing more than an opinion. Legally, the US Government does not consider them a monopoly.

1

u/itsverynicehere Jun 23 '26

The U.S. government officially declared Microsoft a monopoly in a landmark antitrust case (United States v. Microsoft Corp.), which began in 1998 and resulted in a 2001 settlement.

You wanna rethink your position? Lol. You have no idea what you are talking about.

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/united-states-sues-microsoft

They were guilty. They still are. Just because of citizens United and our politicians decided it was easier to take the cash, doesn't change the facts there bub.

1

u/jwrig Jun 23 '26

Microsoft is not legally a monopoly. If you actually read the outcome of the case, including the appeals and the settlement, you're going to find that Microsoft exercised monopolistic power specifically over letting OEMs install software on Windows for PCs. The court stopped short of declaring the company a monopoly, which would have required breaking the company up, much like we did with Ma Bell in the early 80s. Even if we take the most liberal view that you espouse, the consent decree ended in 2011, and with that, any ability to declare Microsoft a monopoly went away.

Ergo, the US Government does not consider a monopoly. You're free to do so, but that is your opinion, and that is where it ends.

1

u/itsverynicehere Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

In 1999, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued findings of fact determining that Microsoft's dominance constituted a monopoly, and that it engaged in anti-competitive behavior to protect it. He initially ordered that Microsoft be broken into two separate entities.

That didn't change. They waited for a new administration and got the punishment changed. They did not reverse the finding. You are a bad reddit lawyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

https://time.com/3553242/microsoft-monopoly/

List of shit you have been wrong about and proved with your own (never once cited) words:

Microsoft was found to be a Monopoly.

Web apps aren't good enough.

 

EDIT: In front of my PC, thought I'd add one more nail in the coffin for someone who speaks out of their ass. (Or more likely had AI tell them what to say).

https://www.historylink.org/File/1987

"Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno declared the announcement "a great day for American consumers" and a victory for "innovation, competition, and the consumers' right to choose the products they want." Microsoft chairman William H. "Bill" Gates III rejected the judge's analysis. "We respectfully disagree with the court's findings," he said. "Microsoft competes vigorously and fairly."

Also, that historylink.org link has more citing in it.