> Looks like someone made a boo-boo it’s simply based on the user agent, w/e string matching they do is too strict they aren’t checking for actual JS/WebASM compatibility or anything like that.
Microsoft has repeatedly engaged in malicious anticompetitive behavior. Without any additional information, I therefore think it's rational to place a high prior probability on this being malicious anticompetitive behavior. The data itself might be consistent with either an accident or malicious anticompetitive behavior. In that case, the prior dictates the posterior.
Agreed. All the big players in fact have a vested interest in encumbering Firefox releases as this browser still provides the ability to use poweful adblocking, which directly affects ad revenue.
It is a matter of configuration in their black box. I am using Librewolf and cannot login to Teams with that either. I have similar problem dropping links in Teams to URL's on my own server. MS blocks them, and I always have to tell people to copy the URL and paste it into a different browser such as Firefox.
On Android, with FF installed and using a Work profile for all the Microsoft bullshit, both Outlook and Teams won't let me click on links because "there's no compatible browser installed" :D
There might be a lot more non-malicious people in the population as a whole but I would not be surprised if there are more malicious than non-malicious people in positions of power, including those positions where you can make anti-competitive decisions for a giant megacorporation.
But even if that is not the case and malicious people are not the norm even there, using Hanlon's razor to try and shut down any discussion of possible malicious actions still ends up empowering the malicious actors that do exist. It's a decent rule for first interactions with human people that you don't know better but is absolutely not the right tool for corporate entities who can much more easily brush off any consequences for being caught acting maliciously. It is outright stupid to apply it to corporations that have a history of maliciousness.
>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
People this smart don't get to claim this level of stupidity. As others have said already, their reputation precedes them. Never underestimate the value of a good (or bad) name.
This represents a basic misunderstanding of how public companies work.
Microsoft has been subjected to multiple lawsuits and judgements and fines and consent agreements regarding its practices in this area. Microsoft has been burned by this kind of thing in the past; we probably don’t even know half of the legal rulings that Microsoft is subject to that this potentially violates.
My high prior probability would be that there are actually a bunch of lawyers in Microsoft whose job it is to ensure that they have training and processes in place precisely to prevent this sort of thing happening, not that Microsoft has a secret team trying to find ways to sneakily block other browsers.
Microsoft had blocked Skype web from being accessed by Firefox for years. I doubt anyone over there cared about it, it did make larger waves a few times.
They no longer do though, or maybe Firefox has stopped identifying itself on the features they are testing.
You’re comparing the behavior of a 10 year old with the behavior of grown adults.
The guy who bullied your friend in college is probably still a monster today. And here you have a company full of people who were older than that (including grad and doctorate students).
If he says the sky is blue you look up. It’s probably cloudy.
I’m about the same age as MS so I’m going to push the analogy. I was 26 in 2000. I hope to God I’m not the same person at 49 after 6 jobs, one failed marriage (and a 12 year current successful one), going through the real estate crash where I lost my shirt, etc.
I really hope I’m not the same person I was in college in 1996
If you’re in a bar tomorrow and someone is picking a fight with you, and they say something that makes you realize that this person is someone you tormented, gloated over and whose life you tried to destroy.
Do you think they’re not entitled to their rage? Do you think you should get a pass in life for wrecking other people’s childhoods without even an apology? Or do you maybe have it coming?
By all means, apologize right now and try to defuse the situation. But Microsoft has never apologized for anything, and their new friends seem to think it’s all overblown and they weren’t cruel, vindictive liars who stunted an entire industry by more than ten years. Gates was deluded. He thought he was saving the world when he wasn’t. Balmer was just a thug. At least he was honest about it.
Google is only now starting to think about approaching the level of maliciousness Microsoft achieved at their zenith. And yes, people are starting to boycott Google because of it. They should.
But boycotting things specifically because Google keeps shutting down projects is not the same thing. Boycotting for that reason is because Google now has a reputation of being quitters, and betting on quitters is just dumb.
Turns out pandering to the whims of developers is a really popular strategy. In the long run though, it's a bad habit you have to break, but it feels good while someone lets you do it.
As I said in another thread this week, you have to throw developers a bone once in a while to keep us happy and comfortable. But Google throws whole cows at people, which teaches people to be butterflies. I'll be interested to see if Xooglers ever connect the dots and start talking about the downsides of getting to work on whatever you want only for as long as you want to do it.
Comparing the outright malicious, evil, anticompetitive actions of Microsoft at their zenith to Google simply canceling services stupidly and prematurely makes me wonder how Hanlon's Razor applies to you.
Ah yes the “it will be different this time I promise” defense.
Microsoft didn’t get divorced or have six jobs or even study ethics as an undergrad. It’s a corporation. Made up of the same kind of people at the same points in their careers as it has always been.
In other words I get older but Microsoft stays the same age.
"I used to abuse people physically and/or emotionally in my early 20s but now I really hope I'm a different person" seems like a far fetched world view to conjure, to me. Do these people exist?
Something life or your friends should have taught you long ago:
If you want to break cycles of abuse in your life, you need to realize and accept that you are not obligated to participate in anyone's redemption story arc but your own.
There's a whole subclass of narcissists who play at being victims while controlling everything. Get out. Run. Do not look back.
I’ve gone back to my 30 year class reunion. No I don’t still hold grudges against the people who picked on me as a short (still short) fat (I got better) kid with a computer who couldn’t talk to a girl if his life depended on it (I’m happily married).
I really don’t think about it. We talk. We ask about family, etc
Did Microsoft attend its class reunion? Did it chat with Netscape about raising kids? Was it insufferably condescending while doing it? Did it go golfing with 3dfx? Did it cheat?
That just means it’s even sillier to compare what they did in 2000 to 2023. How many people do you still think work there now as then? Do you think MS is still using the same strategy in 2023 as they did in 2000 even though the landscape has changed?
Any long lived corporation is more like the ship of Theseus. They are the same in name only.
I think culture outlasts people and that they are likely to continue their historical recruiting standards and practices. As I said in another comment, I get older but Microsoft stays the same age. Corporations don’t mature.
I thought about going to my tenth to do something like this, but two things happened. One, the people who organized our first reunion had not matured since high school. They waited until the last moment to invite a lot of people which meant anyone out of town (ie, who “made it”) wouldn’t be able to come. Two, I realized that forty percent of the people I cared about wouldn’t be there, because our social group spanned years. We had seniors when we were juniors, and when I was a senior we had a sophomore, who was the “king” of the group when my brother joined it when he was a sophomore. I wouldn’t get to see any of those people, and that bummed me out.
By the next reunion I realized I didn’t have anything to prove to any of them. I wasn’t interested. And they were still trying to select for locals. See also “Glory Days” by Bruce Springsteen: people who peaked in high school.
I don't think this particular instance might be anti-competitive, but I don't know their reasons for blocking Firefox Nightly in this case. I'm just jumping into the conversation to tell you that "You saw the part about it not even recommending Edge" was/is incorrect, as it does recommend Edge.
More like "this guy has a long history of bullying others by pretending that they're out of spec, and now hes' saying someone is out of spec; what are the odds that it's an honest mistake?"
Well, the guy is still stalking me and using all possible dark patterns and weasel language to make me do what he wants, and if I don't agree, he will do it anyway by abusing the fact that I need to stay secure.
Fururologist here, Librewolf and firefox nigthly is probably 0.01 porcentaje of users, is probably lore we don't test this we say it doesn't work use something we test it, yes they should say is your browser but the avrege client is old man who doesn't understand what they download and don't wat to use opera from 2000 more than this, is better say use some of this
Microsoft has repeatedly engaged in malicious anticompetitive behavior. Without any additional information, I therefore think it's rational to place a high prior probability on this being malicious anticompetitive behavior. The data itself might be consistent with either an accident or malicious anticompetitive behavior. In that case, the prior dictates the posterior.