Microsoft: Difference between revisions
Tone warning |
Started working through some minor edits for tone, grammar, clarity, and the granny rule. Added Incomplete notice for large chunks of missing/minimal information |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ToneWarning}} | {{ToneWarning}}{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Elaboration needed on section(s) describing recent and ongoing anti-competitive lawsuits.|Issue 2=Elaboration needed on Bing and search engine under anti-competitive incidents.}} | ||
----{{CompanyCargo | ----{{CompanyCargo | ||
| Founded = 1975 | | Founded = 1975 | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| Website = https://www.microsoft.com/ | | Website = https://www.microsoft.com/ | ||
| Description = Microsoft is one of the "Big Five" tech giants who has had issues ranging from antitrust issues to monopolies | | Description = Microsoft is one of the "Big Five" tech giants who has had issues ranging from antitrust issues to monopolies | ||
}}[[Wikipedia:Microsoft|'''''Microsoft Corporation''''']] was founded in 1975 by ''Bill Gates'' and ''Paul Allen'' in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is one of the "Big Five" tech giants, well known for licensing ''Q-DOS'' from ''Seattle Computer Product''s as ''MS-DOS'' prior to purchasing it in 1980, as well as ''Windows'', the graphical extension to ''MS-DO''S. They | }}[[Wikipedia:Microsoft|'''''Microsoft Corporation''''']] was founded in 1975 by ''Bill Gates'' and ''Paul Allen'' in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is one of the "Big Five" tech giants, well known for licensing ''Q-DOS'' from ''Seattle Computer Product''s as ''MS-DOS'' prior to purchasing it in 1980, as well as being known for ''Windows'', the graphical extension to ''MS-DO''S. They have developed the ''Microsoft'' ''Office Suite: Access,'' ''Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher,'' and ''Word''; the ''Xbox'' under ''the Microsoft'' ''Gaming'' division; the ''Surface'' line of laptop devices; and the cloud platform ''Azure''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Zachary |first=Gregg Pascal |last2=Hall |first2=Mark |last3=Montevirgen |first3=Karl |title=Microsoft-Corporation |url=https://www.britannica.com/money/Microsoft-Corporation |url-status=live |website=britannica.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=Michael |date=August 12, 2021 |title=The Rise of DOS: How Microsoft Got the IBM PC OS Contract |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-rise-of-dos-how-microsoft-got-the-ibm-pc-os-contract |url-status=live |website=PCmag}}</ref> | ||
Through | Through acquisitions, Microsoft owns numerous other tech-related businesses.<ref>{{Cite web |title=List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft |website=Wikipedia}}</ref>. Their most notable acquisitions include Skype, [[LinkedIn]], Github and [[Activision Blizzard]]. | ||
They also invest heavily in artificial intelligence enterprises | They also invest heavily in artificial intelligence enterprises like ''[[OpenAI]]'' (best known for creating ''ChatGPT'').<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vincent |first=James |date=July 22, 2019 |title=Microsoft invests $1 billion in OpenAI to pursue holy grail of artificial intelligence |url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20703578/microsoft-openai-investment-partnership-1-billion-azure-artificial-general-intelligence-agi |work=The Verge}}</ref> | ||
==Consumer impact summary | ==Consumer impact summary== | ||
Microsoft | Microsoft has engaged in significant anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices, often leading to lawsuits in the vein of monopolistic behavior. These practices include the infamous bundling of Internet Explorer (and later, the Edge browser) with the Windows operating system, signing exclusive deals with original equipment manufacturers (OEM) to stifle competition, using [[wikipedia:Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish|"embrace, extend, extinguish"]] tactics to eliminate competitors, and other incidents. Microsoft is also engaged in mass surveillance through the PRISM program<ref name=":00">{{Cite web |date=July 11, 2011 |title=Snowden Reveals Microsoft PRISM Cooperation: Helped NSA Decrypt Emails, Chats, Skype Conversations |url=https://www.ibtimes.com/snowden-reveals-microsoft-prism-cooperation-helped-nsa-decrypt-emails-chats-skype-conversations |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701125316/https://www.ibtimes.com/snowden-reveals-microsoft-prism-cooperation-helped-nsa-decrypt-emails-chats-skype-conversations |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=International Business Times}}</ref> and has been has been reported on for removing content from Bing to appease the Chinese government<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nicholas |first=Kristof |date=2009-11-20 |title=Boycott Microsoft Bing |url=http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/boycott-microsoft-bing/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091123194315/http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/boycott-microsoft-bing/ |archive-date=2009-11-23 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=The New York Times}}</ref>. | ||
== | ==Anti-competitive lawsuits== | ||
===US Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. (1998-2001)=== | ===US Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. (1998-2001)=== | ||
In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) | In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>, Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they operated in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The District Court stated the following in the court case:<blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic: | ||
#The prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries | #The prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries | ||
#The prohibition | #The prohibition of modifying the initial boot sequence | ||
#The prohibition of otherwise altering the appearance of the Windows desktop | #The prohibition of otherwise altering the appearance of the Windows desktop | ||
The case was eventually settled | The case was eventually settled<ref>[https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/dl "Final judgment of US v. Microsoft"] - justice.gov - accessed 2025-01-29</ref><ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/373/1199/474311/ "Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ex Rel., Appellant, v. Microsoft Corporation"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> and did not result in a company breakup.<ref>[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/long-antitrust-saga-ends-for-microsoft/ "Long antitrust saga ends for Microsoft"] - seattletimes.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> | ||
Section III.H of the Consent Decree<ref>[https://www.justice.gov/atr/microsoft-consent-decree-compliance-advisory-august-1-2003-us-v-microsoft "Microsoft Consent Decree Compliance Advisory - August 1, 2003 : U.S. V. Microsoft"] - justice.gov - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> required ''Microsoft'' to "allow end users and OEMs to enable or remove access to all middleware products, including web browsers, e-mail clients, and media players through a readily accessible, centralized mechanism." End users and | Section III.H of the Consent Decree<ref>[https://www.justice.gov/atr/microsoft-consent-decree-compliance-advisory-august-1-2003-us-v-microsoft "Microsoft Consent Decree Compliance Advisory - August 1, 2003 : U.S. V. Microsoft"] - justice.gov - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> required ''Microsoft'' to "allow end users and OEMs to enable or remove access to all middleware products, including web browsers, e-mail clients, and media players through a readily accessible, centralized mechanism." End users and Original Equipment Manufacturers should be able "to specify a non-Microsoft middleware product as the default middleware product to be launched in place of the corresponding Microsoft middleware product." | ||
In the case ''United States v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000),<ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/87/30/2307082/ "United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> Microsoft's conduct | In the case ''United States v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000),<ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/87/30/2307082/ "United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> Microsoft's conduct in totality was described as a "deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for [[Intel]]-compatible PC operating systems". Furthermore, "Microsoft's anti-competitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers." | ||
====Summary of | ====Summary of anti-competitive practices revealed in this lawsuit==== | ||
:* | :*Slowing development of rival products like IBM and Apple through contractual or technical barriers.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2002-01-25 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115104834/https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |archive-date=2017-11-15 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=justice.gov |publisher=U.S. Department Of Justice}}</ref> | ||
:*Overcharging consumers by $20–30 billion for Windows licenses in the 1990s by hiding costs in PC bundles.<ref name=":0" /> | :*Overcharging consumers by $20–30 billion total for Windows licenses in the 1990s by hiding costs in PC bundles.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
:* | :*Degrading interoperability of competing software (e.g., Java, Netscape) with Windows. <ref name=":0" /> | ||
:*Blocking rivals' distribution channels by signing exclusive deals with PC manufacturers and ISPs. <ref name=":0" /> | :*Blocking rivals' distribution channels by signing exclusive deals with PC manufacturers and ISPs. <ref name=":0" /> | ||
===Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (2004-2007)=== | ===Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (2004-2007)=== | ||
The EU began an investigation of Microsoft in 1998 | The EU began an investigation of Microsoft in 1998 following a complaint by Sun Microsystems for not disclosing some interfaces to Windows NT. In August 2001, the EU expanded the investigation to look at how streaming media technology has been integrated into Windows.<ref>{{cite news |last=McCullagh |first=Declan |date=2002-07-01 |title=EU looks to wrap up Microsoft probe |url=http://www.news.com/2100-1001_3-941090.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120907171103/http://www.news.com/2100-1001_3-941090.html |archive-date=2012-09-07 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CNET}}</ref> Microsoft was found guilty of illegally abusing its dominant position in the operating system market<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=2007-09-17 |title=EUR-Lex - 62004TJ0201 - Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2007. Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities. |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150725161632/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201 |archive-date=2015-07-25 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=EUR-Lex}}</ref> in order to dominate the entertainment market and push out competitors. It did this by bundling Windows Media Player with the Windows operating system, despite them being two distinct products, allowing "that media player automatically to achieve a level of market penetration corresponding to that of the dominant undertaking’s client PC operating system, without having to compete on the merits with competing products".<ref name=":6" /> | ||
The case was settled and Microsoft was fined €497 million ($613 million) - the largest fine for abuse of a dominant position at the time{{Citation needed|reason=is this still the case?}} - as well as having to provide a version of its Windows operating system without a bundled media player<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |date=2004-03-25 |title=Microsoft hit by record EU fine |url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060413082435/http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/ |archive-date=2006-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=CNN}}</ref> (called Windows XP Home Edition N<ref name="WinXPSRedmondMag2">{{cite news |last=Bekker |first=Scot |date=2005-03-28 |title=European Windows Called 'Windows XP Home Edition N' |url=http://www.redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6625 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050407081820/http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6625 |archive-date=2005-04-07 |access-date=2025-08-23 |publisher=Redmondmag.com}}</ref><ref name="WinXPSBBC">{{cite news |date=2005-03-28 |title=Microsoft and EU reach agreement |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4388349.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051222031525/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4388349.stm |archive-date=2005-12-22 |access-date=2025-08-23 |publisher=BBC}}</ref>). However, this ruling | The case was settled and Microsoft was fined €497 million ($613 million) - the largest fine for abuse of a dominant position at the time{{Citation needed|reason=is this still the case?}} - as well as having to provide a version of its Windows operating system without a bundled media player<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |date=2004-03-25 |title=Microsoft hit by record EU fine |url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060413082435/http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/ |archive-date=2006-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=CNN}}</ref> (called Windows XP Home Edition N<ref name="WinXPSRedmondMag2">{{cite news |last=Bekker |first=Scot |date=2005-03-28 |title=European Windows Called 'Windows XP Home Edition N' |url=http://www.redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6625 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050407081820/http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6625 |archive-date=2005-04-07 |access-date=2025-08-23 |publisher=Redmondmag.com}}</ref><ref name="WinXPSBBC">{{cite news |date=2005-03-28 |title=Microsoft and EU reach agreement |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4388349.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051222031525/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4388349.stm |archive-date=2005-12-22 |access-date=2025-08-23 |publisher=BBC}}</ref>). However, this ruling could be seen as insufficient to reduce Microsoft's monopolistic control as the company priced it the same as its bundled counterpart and the ruling didn't prevent them from selling Windows XP Home Edition. Consumer interest was low, and major Original Equipment Manufacturers did not pre-install Windows XP N on their computers<ref name="WinXPlite">{{cite news |last=Wearden |first=Graeme |date=2005-06-28 |title=Windows XP-lite 'not value for money' |url=http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39131434,00.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051102014905/http://management.silicon.com/government/0%2C39024677%2C39131434%2C00.htm |archive-date=2005-11-02 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Silicon.com}}</ref>. | ||
See also: [[wikipedia:Microsoft_Corp._v_European_Commission|''Microsoft Corp. v European Commission'' (Wikipedia)]] | See also: [[wikipedia:Microsoft_Corp._v_European_Commission|''Microsoft Corp. v European Commission'' (Wikipedia)]] | ||
===JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation and Others (2021-ongoing)=== | ===JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation and Others (2021-ongoing)=== | ||
Valuelicensing, a UK reseller of software licenses, sued<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-11-22 |title=JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation and Others |url=https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/15705722-t-jjh-enterprises-limited-trading-valuelicensing |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250219014502/https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/15705722-t-jjh-enterprises-limited-trading-valuelicensing |archive-date=2025-02-19 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Competition Appeal Tribunal}}</ref> Microsoft for "suppressing the availability of preowned perpetual licences" and restricting customers from reselling old licenses in exchange for more favourable terms on newer, subscription-based models<ref>{{Cite news |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2022-07-08 |title=Judge rejects another Microsoft appeal against surplus license reseller suit |url=https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708112410/https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/ |archive-date=2022-07-08 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Register}}</ref>, claiming £270 million in damages | Valuelicensing, a UK reseller of software licenses, sued<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-11-22 |title=JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation and Others |url=https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/15705722-t-jjh-enterprises-limited-trading-valuelicensing |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250219014502/https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/15705722-t-jjh-enterprises-limited-trading-valuelicensing |archive-date=2025-02-19 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Competition Appeal Tribunal}}</ref> Microsoft for "suppressing the availability of preowned perpetual licences" and restricting customers from reselling old licenses in exchange for more favourable terms on newer, subscription-based models<ref>{{Cite news |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2022-07-08 |title=Judge rejects another Microsoft appeal against surplus license reseller suit |url=https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708112410/https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/ |archive-date=2022-07-08 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Register}}</ref>, claiming £270 million in damages<ref>{{Cite news |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2021-04-08 |title=UK reseller sues Microsoft for £270m in damages claiming prohibitive contracts choke off surplus Office licence supplies |url=https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/valuelicensing_microsoft_lawsuit/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210408123252/https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/valuelicensing_microsoft_lawsuit/ |archive-date=2021-04-08 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Register}}</ref>. | ||
===Ongoing UK | ===Ongoing UK lawsuit for overcharging users of non Azure cloud services=== | ||
UK lawsuit alleges ''Windows Servers'' users were overcharged when using non ''Azure '' cloud services.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gerken |first=Tom |date=2024-12-03 |title=Microsoft faces £1bn class action case in UK over software prices |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20wjnxr5ldo |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241203111042/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20wjnxr5ldo |archive-date=2024-12-03 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=BBC}}</ref> | UK lawsuit alleges ''Windows Servers'' users were overcharged when using non ''Azure ''cloud services.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gerken |first=Tom |date=2024-12-03 |title=Microsoft faces £1bn class action case in UK over software prices |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20wjnxr5ldo |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241203111042/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20wjnxr5ldo |archive-date=2024-12-03 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=BBC}}</ref> | ||
Facing EU and UK lawsuits, Microsoft settled with some cloud vendors but retained practices criticized as unfair.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Browne |first=Ryan |date=December 3, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces £1 billion lawsuit in UK for allegedly overcharging rival cloud firms’ customers |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/03/microsoft-overcharging-rival-cloud-firms-customers-uk-lawsuit-says.html |url-status=live |website=cnbc.com}}</ref> | Facing EU and UK lawsuits, Microsoft settled with some cloud vendors but retained practices criticized as unfair.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Browne |first=Ryan |date=December 3, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces £1 billion lawsuit in UK for allegedly overcharging rival cloud firms’ customers |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/03/microsoft-overcharging-rival-cloud-firms-customers-uk-lawsuit-says.html |url-status=live |website=cnbc.com}}</ref> | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
todo<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kotadia |first=Munir |date=2004-01-19 |title=Software giant threatens mikerowesoft |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-giant-threatens-mikerowesoft/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124075659/https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-giant-threatens-mikerowesoft/ |archive-date=2020-11-24 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=ZDNET}}</ref> | todo<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kotadia |first=Munir |date=2004-01-19 |title=Software giant threatens mikerowesoft |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-giant-threatens-mikerowesoft/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124075659/https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-giant-threatens-mikerowesoft/ |archive-date=2020-11-24 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=ZDNET}}</ref> | ||
== | ==Anti-competitive incidents== | ||
===Prompts to stop users from installing competing browsers (2021 - Present)=== | ===Prompts to stop users from installing competing browsers (2021 - Present)=== | ||
Since '''December 2021''', users who install other web browsers, such as ''[[Google Chrome|Chrome]], [[Brave browser|Brave]], or [[Opera web browser|Opera]],'' will face a pop-up on their screen telling users to instead use [[Microsoft Edge|''Edge'']] | Since '''December 2021''', users who install other web browsers, such as ''[[Google Chrome|Chrome]], [[Brave browser|Brave]], or [[Opera web browser|Opera]],'' will face a pop-up on their screen telling users to instead use [[Microsoft Edge|''Edge'']]<ref>{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=2021-12-02 |title=Microsoft’s new Windows prompts try to stop people downloading Chrome |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/2/22813733/microsoft-windows-edge-download-chrome-prompts |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211202114904/https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/2/22813733/microsoft-windows-edge-download-chrome-prompts |archive-date=2021-12-02 |access-date=2025-08-22 |website=The Verge}}</ref>. Some of the messages of these pop-ups include<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sen |first=Sayan |date=2021-12-02 |title=Microsoft says its own Edge browser is more trustworthy than "so 2008" Google Chrome |url=https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-says-its-own-edge-browser-is-more-trustworthy-than-so-2008-google-chrome/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211202081952/https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-says-its-own-edge-browser-is-more-trustworthy-than-so-2008-google-chrome/ |archive-date=2021-12-02 |access-date=2025-08-22 |website=Neowin}}</ref>:<blockquote>“Microsoft Edge runs on the same technology as Chrome, with the added trust of Microsoft.” | ||
“That browser is so 2008! Do you know what’s new? Microsoft Edge.” | “That browser is so 2008! Do you know what’s new? Microsoft Edge.” | ||
“‘I hate saving money,’ said no one ever. Microsoft Edge is the best browser for online shopping.”</blockquote>This has been reported to occur on devices running either ''[[Windows|Windows 10]]'' or ''[[Windows|Windows 11]]'', and frequently aims to directly harm the market share of Chrome<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=2023-10-25 |title=Microsoft now thirstily injects a poll when you download Google Chrome |url=https://www.theverge.com/23930960/microsoft-edge-google-chrome-poll-why-try-another-browser |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231025001842/https://www.theverge.com/23930960/microsoft-edge-google-chrome-poll-why-try-another-browser |archive-date=2023-10-25 |access-date=2025-08-22 |website=The Verge}}</ref>, despite the | “‘I hate saving money,’ said no one ever. Microsoft Edge is the best browser for online shopping.”</blockquote>This has been reported to occur on devices running either ''[[Windows|Windows 10]]'' or ''[[Windows|Windows 11]]'', and frequently aims to directly harm the market share of Chrome<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=2023-10-25 |title=Microsoft now thirstily injects a poll when you download Google Chrome |url=https://www.theverge.com/23930960/microsoft-edge-google-chrome-poll-why-try-another-browser |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231025001842/https://www.theverge.com/23930960/microsoft-edge-google-chrome-poll-why-try-another-browser |archive-date=2023-10-25 |access-date=2025-08-22 |website=The Verge}}</ref>, despite both the Edge and Chrome browsers running on the same codebase as ''[[Chromium]]''. | ||
===Bing search attempting to harm competing search engines (2023 - Unknown)=== | ===Bing search attempting to harm competing search engines (2023 - Unknown)=== | ||
When doing a web search for an alternative web browser through ''[[Microsoft Bing|Bing]]'', ''[[Microsoft]]''<nowiki/>'s in-house developed | When doing a web search for an alternative web browser through ''[[Microsoft Bing|Bing]]'', ''[[Microsoft]]''<nowiki/>'s in-house developed search engine that is also used as the default for ''[[Microsoft Edge|Edge]]'', the search engine's AI will attempt to bury the search results for the web browser from the user<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=Jun 6, 2023 |title=Microsoft has no shame: Bing spit on my ‘Chrome’ search with a fake AI answer |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/6/23736289/microsoft-bing-chrome-search-fake-ai-chatbot |access-date=Jun 21, 2025 |work=The Verge}}</ref>. | ||
Beyond this, users specifically using both ''[[Microsoft Edge|Edge]]'' and its | Beyond this, users specifically using both ''[[Microsoft Edge|Edge]]'' and its default search engine will continue to see notices at the top of the search, attempting to keep the user on the browser.{{Citation needed}} | ||
===Disguising itself as another search engine (2025 - Present)<!--I want to see more elaboration here - JamesTDG-->=== | ===Disguising itself as another search engine (2025 - Present)<!--I want to see more elaboration here - JamesTDG-->=== | ||
Currently, when a user does a web search for "[[Google]]", the search engine will disguise itself as a generic search engine that would appear to look like Google in the eyes of the average user.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=Jan 6, 2025 |title=Microsoft is using Bing to trick people into thinking they’re on Google |url=https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/6/24337117/microsoft-bing-search-results-google-design-trick |access-date=Jun 21, 2025 |work=The Verge}}</ref>Disguising itself as another search engine (2025 - Present))<!--I want to see more elaboration here - JamesTDG--> | Currently, when a user does a web search for "[[Google]]", the search engine will disguise itself as a generic search engine that would appear to look like Google in the eyes of the average user.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=Jan 6, 2025 |title=Microsoft is using Bing to trick people into thinking they’re on Google |url=https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/6/24337117/microsoft-bing-search-results-google-design-trick |access-date=Jun 21, 2025 |work=The Verge}}</ref>Disguising itself as another search engine (2025 - Present))<!--I want to see more elaboration here - JamesTDG--> | ||
==Anti | ==Anti-consumer incidents== | ||
===Windows 3.1 AARD code=== | ===Windows 3.1 AARD code=== | ||
[[File:Windows 3.10.068 setup AARD code.png|alt=Windows 3.1 beta setup with a gray square in the middle in red text coloring that says "Non-fatal error detected: error #4D53 (Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support.). Press ENTER to continue"|thumb|Windows 3.1 AARD code]] | [[File:Windows 3.10.068 setup AARD code.png|alt=Windows 3.1 beta setup with a gray square in the middle in red text coloring that says "Non-fatal error detected: error #4D53 (Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support.). Press ENTER to continue"|thumb|Windows 3.1 AARD code]] | ||
Users | Users attempting to install a beta release of Windows 3.1 on a machine running [[wikipedia:DR-DOS|DR DOS]] would receive an error message stating "'''Non-fatal error detected: error #4D53 (Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support)'''". The error code was discovered by Geoff Chappell on April 17 1992.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chappell |first=Geoff |date=8 May 1999 |title=AARD code |url=https://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/archive/aard/index.htm?tx=57 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240112155815/https://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/archive/aard/index.htm?tx=57 |archive-date=12 Jan 2024 |access-date=16 Aug 2025 |website=Geoff Chappell, Software Analyst}}</ref> DR DOS was capable of running Windows 3.1, as it is compatible with MS-DOS, but the AARD code in the installer used undocumented structures to detect if the machine was running DR DOS in order to display this message. The rationale was to coerce the user into buying MS-DOS: "What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS," wrote (at the time) senior vice president of Microsoft, Brad Silverberg, in a 1992 email.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2002-01-02 |title=Microsoft emails focus on DR-DOS threat |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-emails-focus-on-dr-dos-threat/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310065721/https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-emails-focus-on-dr-dos-threat/ |archive-date=2016-03-10 |access-date=2025-08-30 |work=CNET}}</ref> | ||
===Xbox 360 Defect - The "Red Ring of Death" | ===Xbox 360 Defect - The "Red Ring of Death"=== | ||
{{Main|Bumpgate}} | {{Main|Bumpgate}} | ||
In 2005, Microsoft released the ''Xbox 360''. Not | In 2005, Microsoft released the ''Xbox 360''. Not long after, consumers began reporting an issue with their consoles of three red flashing lights on the ring around the power button. This was coined by consumers as the "''Red Ring of Death''", and by 2007, ''Xbox''<nowiki/>'s hardware engineers eventually discovered that the reason for it was a defect in the ''Xbox 360''<nowiki/>'s GPU.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 13, 2021 |title=Power On: The Story of Xbox {{!}} Chapter 5: The Red Ring of Death |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch? |url-status=live |access-date=June 4, 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> | ||
For | For several months of this incident's prevalence in 2006, consumers had to pay to get their consoles fixed by Microsoft if the console was outside of its one year warranty. However, by September 2007, they chose to extend the warranty to three years from the date of original purchase, and they refunded anyone who had previously paid to get this issue fixed<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moore |first=Peter |date=2007 |title=Open Letter from Peter Moore |url=http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023004948/http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |archive-date=23 Oct 2007 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=Xbox}}</ref>. Some current and former employees' comments in the ''Xbox'' documentary, ''Power On: The Story of Xbox'' reveal that Microsoft may have done this to rescue the ''Xbox'' brand.<ref name=":2" /> Nonetheless, this was beneficial to consumers who had made an investment in and enjoyed games from Microsoft's console. | ||
===Xbox=== | ===Xbox=== | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
:Xbox Series X/S uses a proprietary [https://www.seagate.com/content/dam/seagate/en/content-fragments/products/datasheets/xbox-expansion-card-series-4tb/xbox-expansion-card-series-4tb-DS2081-4-2504US-en_US.pdf Storage Expansion Card] that costs more when compared to industry standard storage.{{Citation needed}}<!-- this section seems to reference a lot of support forums/reddit. not exactly the most professional but it's better than nothing considering this is user reporting --> | :Xbox Series X/S uses a proprietary [https://www.seagate.com/content/dam/seagate/en/content-fragments/products/datasheets/xbox-expansion-card-series-4tb/xbox-expansion-card-series-4tb-DS2081-4-2504US-en_US.pdf Storage Expansion Card] that costs more when compared to industry standard storage.{{Citation needed}}<!-- this section seems to reference a lot of support forums/reddit. not exactly the most professional but it's better than nothing considering this is user reporting --> | ||
*'''Encrypted Storage''' | *'''Encrypted Storage''' | ||
:Xbox Series X/S consoles have a removable SSD, | :Xbox Series X/S consoles have a removable solid-state drive (SSD), yet they contain an encrypted partition that contains a key which is married to the motherboard. This key changes after each system update, making it difficult to replace the drive<ref>{{Cite web |date=Jul 13, 2023 |title=New Xbox SSD interface is horribly anti repair | ||
|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbmzp-rqwfU |access-date=Sept 3, 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> Xbox 360 and Xbox One consoles allowed users to easily replace the HDD | |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbmzp-rqwfU |access-date=Sept 3, 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref>. Xbox 360 and Xbox One consoles allowed users to easily replace the hard disk drive (HDD) as needed since the hard drives did not contain such encryption<ref>{{Cite web |date=Nov 28, 2024 |title=Xbox 360 HDD Replacement | ||
|url=https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Xbox+360+HDD+Replacement/3430 |access-date=Sept 3, 2025 |website=iFixit}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=May 20, 2024 |title=Xbox One Hard Drive Replacement | |url=https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Xbox+360+HDD+Replacement/3430 |access-date=Sept 3, 2025 |website=iFixit}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=May 20, 2024 |title=Xbox One Hard Drive Replacement | ||
|url=https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Xbox+One+Hard+Drive+Replacement/36771 |access-date=Sept 3, 2025 |website=iFixit}}</ref> For the original Xbox, the | |url=https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Xbox+One+Hard+Drive+Replacement/36771 |access-date=Sept 3, 2025 |website=iFixit}}</ref>. For the original Xbox, the hard drive was married to the motherboard, but if the console was modified with custom firmware, users could easily replace the drive{{Citation needed}}. | ||
===Windows (Win 9x - Win 10)<!-- Reluctant to add this one unless we have more reports of this online, but I did find some microsoft support articles that mention Factory Resets happening with windows updates: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/216587/why-a-factory-reset-without-my-permission-during-a -->=== | ===Windows (Win 9x - Win 10)<!-- Reluctant to add this one unless we have more reports of this online, but I did find some microsoft support articles that mention Factory Resets happening with windows updates: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/216587/why-a-factory-reset-without-my-permission-during-a -->=== | ||