[azharcs]

This is exactly the reasoning that pisses me off. If MS pulled the same shit, we would be out with pitchforks ready to bury them. Have some consistency. Any corporation using their monopoly product to provide a bad experience for competitive products is evil.

[ecspike]

Microsoft has already pulled it. Please point me to a native version of Office running on any Linux distro...oh that's right, doesn't exist.

Bing Maps does exist.

[gizmo686]

Google went out of their way to prevent MS phones from using Google maps. MS did not go out of their way to allow Linux to use Office. There is a big difference.

[dredmorbius]

Some Microsoft software was supported on other Unix platforms through Wabi and similar tools, and IIRC there may also have been native ports. Microsoft rather pointedly has avoided supporting the Linux market, with the exception of tools which allow interoperability with Windows systems (notably kernel contributions most of which relate to Azure).

[taligent]

> Microsoft rather pointedly has avoided supporting the Linux market.

Please. Wake up and smell the coffee.

EVERY major software company has avoided the Linux market. It's because of the questionable market opportunity that is the reason not any competition issues.

[dredmorbius]

As noted: there was specific end-user software supported on Unix platforms, which could be, but never was, trivially ported to Linux.

More tellingly: Linux's overarching success has been in the server space (and the platform is emerging as the mobile leader). Microsoft's server software, including most notably SQL Server (derived from Sybase, originally targeted at Unix systems) isn't available for Linux. Neither are Exchange, Active Directory, Sharepoint, IIS, or Windows File Sharing. Free Software (and proprietary) alternatives and work-alikes for each exist, and in many or most cases are more successful, though AD remains a market leader.

Microsoft conquered the desktop PC market by leveraging compulsory per-CPU OS license via bundled office software to create a self-reinforcing illegal monopoly, which it then attempted to extend into the small server space. It's fought every attempt to crack any part of that stranglehold, fighting OEMs providing other operating systems (DR DOS, Novell, BeOS, Linux), by not porting its Office products (except to Mac OS X, since discontinued), and by not porting/building its server products to other platforms.

Major companies which have not avoided the Linux market include IBM, Oracle (and acquired companies Sun and PeopleWare), and Informix. Yes, all server space. I'm making a point here.

[ams6110]

There actually was an IE for Unix way back in the day. Probably when it was just relabeled Spyglass Mosaic.

[RivieraKid]

Microsoft's pretty agressive against Android (license fees for every sold Android, #droidrage campaign etc.) so I fully approve of this Google's move.

[philwelch]

Spitefully blocking Windows Mobile's browser because Microsoft is insufficiently humble in its competition against Android is a raging dick-move.

[taligent]

Yeh no. Microsoft extracts patent royalties (e.g. the FAT32) from pretty much everyone and anyone. They haven't targeted Android in any unique way.

If anything Google's abuse of FRAND patents against Microsoft over the XBox 360 H.264 codec is the most egregious example of aggressive behaviour.

[SirPulse]

Besides developing office on Linux means commiting resources to support that platform. In this case its a website and Google actually spent resources to break a site that was working previously.

[vetinari]

It didn't work previously. It loaded, but was unusable.

However, I think that a big box with notice about unsupported browser and trying about own risk would help more that redirect.

[sbuk]

Completely and utterly different, to the point that your assertion borders on the ridiculous. So much for the "open" and "choice" mantra's. However you look at it, this is a dick move.

[Xion]

Isn't it exactly what Google is refraining from? Since the Maps work crappily on non-WebKit mobile browsers, allowing them to be used is delivering bad experience.

I fail to see how this is different than e.g. not supporting Flash on iOS devices due to poor performance and battery drain - a then-controversial move which is now seen as reasonable even outside the circles of Apple fans.

[sarvinc]

In one case we are talking about the absence of software/support; the iPhone does not ship with Flash. Actively preventing software from running is another; Apple preventing jailbreaking. Now, who do I blame for my iPad mini's lack of an Android port?