[cookiecaper]

Although I don't think it's unethical to intentionally make the experience slower for some users, I'm not trying to justify it.

I'm trying to explain that as long as Microsoft's incentives align with making Windows dominant, they're going to engage in behaviors to make it happen, including things like artificially slowing connections from non-Windows machines.

Instead of saying "MS is releasing stuff open-source, they must be having a change of heart", we should say "MS believes that opening this as open-source is the best way to ensure Windows' continued dominance". That's what I'm trying to highlight.

[sqeaky]

So why do you say anti-competitive behavior wouldn't be unethical?

Sorry for the double negatives, I am just trying to understand. It seems clear to me that potentially hurting paying customers to increase one's own wealth is obviously unethical. This of course presumes malice, which hasn't yet been proven.

[cookiecaper]

IMO, most companies can't engage in anti-competitive behavior independently. You need a special status as a monopoly or a part of a cartel. For normal companies, normal behavior is "anti-competitive" because the point of business is to beat your competitors.

If we assign MS the role of a "typical business" instead of a monopoly (they have may been a monopoly 20 years ago, but it's hard to make that case now), Microsoft is under no ethical obligation a) to provide a client for other operating systems; or b) to ensure that performance parity exists between every client on every platform.

While it may not be super polite to release clients for other platforms and then subtly cripple them in order to drive users back to Windows, there's nothing below-the-belt about it IMO.

[sqeaky]

For desktop PCs they still have greater than 90% marketshare. In businesses its closer to 99% I think the title is "Monopoly" is appropriate.