That's a good story, Roger. I'm jealous, I usually don't check infoworld till the end of the week. I recall it being pretty obvious as the ISP deals were going down that IE was more that "free forever", it had a negative cost, that is, people were being paid to take it. A few other choice snippets (from infoworld.com )
For instance, without identifying the author, the Justice Department filing quotes an internal Microsoft document as saying that the "strategic objective" was to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."
Not exactly a surprise there, just an old favorite topic. Ballmer's "Embrace and Demolish" on the Java front.
According to the Justice Department, Windows marketing director Jonathan Roberts told his subordinates to "to really look at why people who get IE with a new machine switch to Navigator and what is being addressed in IE 4.0 to make that difficult."
Good old Microsoft, always looking to give the customers what they want. Just taking us where we want to go again.
The memos also detail Microsoft's determination in keeping OEMs from removing the Internet Explorer icon from the Windows desktop. Several PC makers, including Micron, Compaq, and Gateway, butted heads with the Redmond, Wash., giant over the issue -- and lost.
That being to preserve the integrity and uniformity of the Windows 95 experience, of course. Which suddenly became an issue when that air supply thing became important.
I wonder if all this stuff was around because of Exchange's "rich messaging architecture", aka email in a database. Almost enough to make you feel sorry for these guys, sort of like the Nixon tapes. Then again, it couldn't happen to a nicer company.
Cheers, Dan. |
