Hacker News Reader

Comment by xxs | Hacker News Reader

skype, lync, skype for business, teams...

Skype was never anywhere near "open" and always fully proprietary. It was just a change of management, and nowhere near "EEE".

Teams is just a run-of-the-mill chat thingy, no? Was is ever open in any way or built on standards? What did they "embrace" or "extend"?

EEE doesn't have to involve "open" anything. You're moving the goal post.

"[Strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its competitors. "

So pray tell me, how does one either "embrace" or "extend" a product that has always been proprietary, has never used open protocols or standards, and never had any interoperability with anything else?

You purchase the rights.

EEE is about making standards and protocols incompatible with competitors. This literally cannot apply to Skype as it was never compatible with anything. I don't know what part of that is so hard to grasp. You seem intent on using your own definition of "every bad decision Microsoft ever made" or some such.

I never indicated that the definition couldn't include open implementations, just that the definition wasn't limited to ONLY openness. There are plenty of examples of this behavior not even exclusive to Microsoft. Proprietary products can build on an open protocol and attempt to change it, sometimes for the worse.

I didn't bring Skype into this, so I'm not going to comment on it as an example.

Microsoft acquired Skype more than 10 years ago...

Surely they screwed up the massive lead in the space that Skype had, but I can't say they "EEE"'d it. It was just badly run.

Poor management/neglect is part of the extinguish step.

So, purposely?

How do you prove intent in a historical context without admission?

If it happens consistently, does it matter?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com