Talk:Embrace, extend, and extinguish/Archives/2012

SMB

How could Microsoft have 'embraced' SMB? It wasn't an existing standard, but something Microsoft developed from scratch.

Not entirely from scratch. According to [1], it was based upon work from 3com and IBM as well. But it may be a poor example, since SMB appears to be largely Microsoft work.

You have NFS at your disposal. Its actually FASTER than SMB (Samba, not native. The native implementation is slow azphak).93.129.58.24 (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

JavaScript/JScript

Could somebody explain please why JavaScript was an example of eee?

Yes. Microsoft's implementation of Javascript in IE, called JScript, used a different Document object model to Netscape's. When W3C standards were created for the DOM, Microsoft continued to ignore them. This means that pages scripted for IE often do not work in standards-compliant browsers. In addition, Microsoft's implementation of JScript also allowed other scripting languages to be used, encouraging fragmentation of Web scripting.

This totally ignores the whole story. For anyone who has really worked with "layers" in Netscape, it is clear that **both** companies tried to second guess what the W3C was coming up as a standard. In fact, at the time the IE implementation was closer, and this has been cited as one of the reasons Netscape lost ground to IE.

75.55.117.117 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This item is cropping up again, when WHATWG (all non-IE browser makers, though MS was invited to the party) worked to create a backwards-compatible, unified JavaScript 5/ECMAScript 4 -- and then Microsoft decides to spread FUD and open up a chance to do some EEE by saying that ES4 will not be backwards compatible, so they want to create their own alternative JS-like language. [2] [3] --Temporitron (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Free software

In addition, free software has so far appeared to be resistant to the "Embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy, at it prevents the third phase of the plan from being executed, by ensuring that any vendor extensions to the standard are available to the community, and cannot be tied to any single vendor.

I'm kind of confused by this. At the beginning, it seems to say that it is ineffective to use EEE against free software, but at the end it seems to say that it is ineffective to use EEE on behalf of free software. Ahhh, now I see it -- it's talking about taking free software code and modifying it (modifications must stay within the license, thus cannot be kept proprietary). This doesn't seem to match with the rest of the article, which talks about creating imcompatible implementations of standards. That's a whole nother game, folks. --Brion 08:00 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Put back above text with wording clarified to attempt to fix the problem above.

consoles, disk compression, spreadsheets

Recently added to the article:

• XBox/PS-2
• Doublespace/Stacker
• Excel/QuattroPro

Surely these cannot be examples of EEE, as there were no open standards to embrace? Rather, Microsoft introduced a competing product which performs a similar function but is not at all compatible with the other, previously more popular proprietary product. EEE is based on advertising compatibility but providing an incoming upgrade path only. --Brion

Well put. I would guess, based on the overall flavor of this article, that a user, perhaps unaware of the NPOV policy, saw this article as a forum for Microsoft-bashing. Perhaps this is not true, but in any case the author of those additions has made attacks on Microsoft which are not only non-NPOV, but have nothing to do with the topic of the article.

These additions have been removed, so shouldn't "The neutrality of this article is disputed." be removed as well? I don't see any other mention of NPOV issues on the talk page.

Aragorn2 13:52, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"tragedy of the commons" etc

I have removed all the stuff about "tragedy of the commons", ontological warfare, and other such hard-to-read stuff. Also the (supposedly related) biology. The article should get down to the substance of the issue, rather than these very technical ideas which most people cannot, I take it, easily understand. Evercat 14:51, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• well thanks for letting me know you deleted some good stuff. now i can look for it in the history pages

no longer support Win32

I pulled this sentence that was added by an anon user on Nov 27 2004.

Microsoft has also announced that they will no longer support Win32, which is the API used by Standard C and C++ programmers on Windows.

I really doubt they are going to stop supporting Win32. Maybe concentrate future development elsewhere, but I really doubt they are going to stop supporting it. Can anyone cite a source where Microsoft announce this? AlistairMcMillan 18:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer v Netscape

I removed this text, which was added by CyborgTosser in this edit:

it would be inaccurate to apply the term to a subject such as Internet Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator

He doesn't explain why he thinks EEE shouldn't be applied to this subject and it doesn't make sense when components of IE and NN (i.e. HTML, ActiveX, Java and JavaScript) are cited throughout the article as examples of EEE. AlistairMcMillan 19:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with "Most Companies ..."

"Most companies see standards as merely a way of comforting customers that a technology is fundamentally mature and immediately concentrate on proprietary extensions, the value added, which is the primary way of retaining customers over time."

The author of this seems to be saying that most companies view public standards as merely some sort of marketing gimmick and that most companies are primarily in the business of creating proprietary standards and products in order to retain customers. That is ridiculous if you step back and think about it.

Standards are very fundamental and absolutely essential for modern business practices. How could a company have much of a revenue stream if there was no standard currency to use? How long could a company stay in business if it ignored the laws that applied where it operated? In fact, standards are so fundamental in any civilized society that we normally don’t even consider not complying with them; instead we normally view violating accepted standards as "cheating" or "crime".

Unless a company is trying to sell some "bleeding edge" product, there is normally no need for it to reassure prospective customers that some technology is fundamentally mature, so obviously most companies do not view standards as "merely" a way to do so. Even in situations where technological maturity is an issue, companies join forces to create standards primarily out of a desire to mature the technology, not to create some marketing gimmick.

With respect to the marketing aspect of standards, the most important considerations for any prospective customer would usually include: "What is it?", "Will it work?" and "Is it safe?" Unless the answers are obvious (or can be made obvious through demonstrations), the company will often refer to standards to help answer those questions, but that is not the same as using it as a gimmick. Actually, because standards tend to be a dry subject, marketing people don’t usually like to talk about them much. As a result, standardization is probably much more important to most companies than many people realize. Furthermore, the standards are often customer-driven as a means of defining the customers' needs and improving the chances that they will be met. (Think about military specifications, for example.) That's not to say standards are never used as a marketing gimmick -- it certainly happens -- but that's the exception, not the rule.

The primary way of retaining customers over time is (hopefully) meeting their needs. If a company produces products that violate existing standards, whether it is concentrating (in some way) on proprietary extensions or not, usually customers will conclude that the company’s products are defective and the abandon the company. The company may even find itself in legal hot water or suffering sanctions from peer groups. This, of course, assumes that the company has a peer group with enough clout to enforce its sanctions and to give customers other alternatives.

"Most companies ... immediately concentrate on proprietary extensions, the value added" Immediately after what? Concentrate how? Value added to what? Manufacturing companies add value by converting raw materials into finished products for their customers. Companies that sell services add value by improving their customers' situations. Only something like a contract design or engineering firm could claim to add value for its customers by concentrating on extending established standards.

Yank entire Free software EEE

I think the entire Free software EEE section should be removed. I suppose that would be a major revision requiring community consensus.

Even if GNU/Linux is responsible for the demise of previous UNIX operating systems, it does not follow that this was an example of EEE. EEE typically involves cynically embracing X, extending X to form X' and leveraging dominance in Y combined with true-X compatibility to form a critical mass for X', then breaking the X-X' compatibility. I don't see how there was any previously existing dominance in any Y for the Free Software movement to leverage.

As far as the statement UNIX vendors cannot incorporate extensions without being subject to strong constraints goes, nothing in the GPL can put any constraints on UNIX vendors extending their own software to match the capabilities of GNU software - there just isn't much of a financial incentive to do so. That's being undercut on price, not an example of EEE.

Naturally for software to run under the Linux kernel, it must have beeen compiled with a Linux-compatible compiler. We can't expect parts built to put in a Ford to work in a Toyota. But it's not as if this is being done just to lock out competitors. The C libraries are covered by the LGPL, not the GPL, so linking to them does not change proprietary software into free software.

---

I agree with the above, and have removed the section on "Free Software EEE". Whoever wrote this makes the assertion that "some" people believe that Free Software can work by the same process:

"According to some, the EEE strategy is also used by some free software",...

yet no reference is given for these mysterious "some". I have never encountered the term being used in this way to refer to Free Software, so this POV (if it exists) is probably rare. In any case, it certainly is not consistent with the meaning or intent of EEE, as that technique of achieving market dominance requires the sort of proprietary control that copylefted free software is explicitly designed to prevent. As you have pointed out, the example given for this putative "Free Software EEE" is really about something else entirely -- namely that proprietary software products are sometimes not competitive with Free Software alternatives and may be withdrawn from the market by their vendors. This is a perfectly normal process in any competitive market, and has nothing to do with EEE. --65.87.250.131 04:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

ActiveX/XPCOM

I removed the mention of technologies like ActiveX and XPCOM since they embraced nothing. For EEE, the first steps is to embrace an existing technology, like HTML, C++, etc. --minghong 13:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"The internet" was what was being embraced and extended, per J. Allard's memo. --Temporitron (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Halloween documents

Someone just added "and later confirmed to be real by Microsoft". Is this true? Why would MS want to confirm this? — Sebastian (talk) 23:15, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20010417195837/www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/mwarv/linuxresp.asp AlistairMcMillan 11:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

FS EEE

First of all, Linux isn't totally GCC dependent. GCC extended C, but only obscure aspects are solely attributed to GCC. The source code of GCC, make, and other crap is available anyway... and the person who wrote the FS EEE is a person who has no idea how programming works.

C++ standart support

The other issue with Microsoft's C++ implementation appears to be the removal of many originally strict errors and warnings that appear in other, more standards compliant compilers such as the open-source GCC compiler

Please provide proof that GCC supports c++ better than VC++ or I'll delete this section.

EEE original use not by "critics"

As the testimony at the anti-trust trial shows, embrace, extend, extinguish was actually used inside Microsoft before it became common parlance outside. Its wide adoption outside Microsoft generally followed the trial. This calls the entire opening paragraph into question. -- Gnetwerker 23:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Move back to "embrace and extend"

The move to "embrace, extend and extinguish" was done on the basis that it was the "more common phrase." Google Fight does not support that. It should be moved back to the phrase that more people agree on. Gazpacho 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit disappointing that the Harvard Law Review would cite such flagrant original research as this article was. Gazpacho 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Although I do find it disappointing, that remark was not part of the move proposal. Gazpacho

• Oppose: I don't think something referenced in Federal Court testimony is original research. OTOH, certainly many of the examples may be questionable. -- Gnetwerker 19:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've scanned the testimony, and e&e&e does appear as a phrase that was used, but it is a somewhat tenious as later, when asked directly if there was any variant of e&e used by MS, "embrace and smother" was given as an answer, and it was acknowledged that the word "Extinguish" did not appear on the notes of the meeting, where "embrace, extend and change the nature" was mentioned instead. The closest direct MS quote I could find was "kill HTML by extending it" MartinRe 23:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hence "alleged". -- Gnetwerker 00:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Alleged" doesn't appear in the lead paragraph, which I would expect it to, if the article is called e&e&e. I would have thought it would be more valid to call the article e&e (which seems to be the base phrase) with mention of the different varients (alleged or otherwise) within. Titling the article by one of the "alleged" variants instead of the base phrase seems wrong, and has the slight scent of POV to me. MartinRe 09:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Another problem is that the article doesn't use direct attribution like it should, thus it falls back to a weasal word ("alleged"). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it may be "alleged" in the legal sense, but it was stated by a witness under oath in Federal court, was accepted (and repeated) by the Judge, and is referenced in literally hundreds of reliable newspaper reports and books. It may be "alleged", but it is sourced better than 90% of Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object You have twisted the whole article into a pro-Microsoft piece. Shame on you. -- Anomicene 21:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed unattributed POV. No apologies. Gazpacho 18:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Two refererences to this slogan linked do not use the term "extinguish", the Zdnet one is the only one to do so. My own experience on this phrase is that "E&E" is more common in "offical" usage, and "E&E&E" is used as a parody/exaggeration. I would be surprised if the Zdnet article is a verbatim quote of a Federal court testimony, does anyone have a link for the actual transcript? Quote marks can both mean quoting someone or something that's not literal. i.e. he said "hello" vs the "fact" that... I have a feeling that the zdnet article is the latter. MartinRe 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone alerted me about this discussion and suggested I weigh in. It appears from policy here that I should not contribute or vote, but I will comment that the full phrase "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" is from my court testimony, and is my recollection of Paul's comment. This is verifiable in the court transcripts which are easily available on the web. I don't know about how common the phrase is now, but we first heard it from Microsoft sources in 1995. The first uses long predated ActiveX and had to do with various more prosaic HTML extensions. -- Steven McGeady 21:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: per the horse's mouth, so to speak. Thumbelina 23:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That doesn't change that "E&E" is the more widely used variant, and not just by Microsoft. 156,000 hits vs. 18,300. Gazpacho 18:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proponent appears to be a revisionist trying to mutilate this article beyond recognition. -- Omniplex 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support this article needs a new name badly and Embrace and Extend is in more common usage but I think we will need some sort of name compromise here... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 04:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll suggest Microsoft and interoperability, just to see what people think. Gazpacho 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It is currnetly 4/2 against a move, so suggesting a different name is sort of re-arranging the deck chairs ... -- Gnetwerker 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

When reading this discussion page, have in mind that 'Anomicene' and 'Gnetwerker' were actually the same user, that is, 'sockpuppets'. This user managed to twist the debate into an anti-Microsoft POV until he/she was unmasked. Still, the results of the vote above were not revised, even after it was found out about the sockpuppetry. By that time Harvard Law Review had already cited the article, which still has secondary sources that don't follow wikipedia's policies. 75.63.5.117 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

POV with Statistics

User:Gazpacho, the Microsoft apologist here, appears prone to lies with (inaccurate) statistics. Above, he implies that the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" gets only 18,300 hits (versus 156k for the Microsoft approved version). An actual google search for the words "embrace, extend, extinguish" with microsoft gets 68,800 hits[4], but the common variant "embrace, extend, exterminate" (also with microsoft) gets 43,400 hits[5] and a combined search (without "Microsoft") gets 309,000[6]. A simple search for the words "embrace" and "extend" with microsoft yields many more[7], but the top results are to things like "embrace, extend, and clone" or "embrace, extend, and censor"[8]. In any case, the number of google hits does not have any underlying meaning here. It is the policy, as described in the anti-trust trial, that is being described here. Gazpacho may want to sanitize it (he admits he has a POV on the subject), but we should not let him. The article shouldn't be any more anti-Microsoft than the facts are, but the facts are fairly damning. -- Anomicene 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of "...and exterminate" and I went to Google Fight for the comparison because that's exactly what Google Fight is for. I wish you'd stop assuming bad faith on my part.

At least finally Anomicene was deleted as a user. She/he showed a clear bias here, and the deletion was a good move by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.5.72 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is just misleading to claim that E&E was about "standards" in Netscape's case. Surely you remember how many "Netscape-enhanced" web pages there were circa 1995-96. They weren't "w3c-enhanced"; FONT, COLOR, BGCOLOR, LAYER, didn't come from the W3C. The W3C at the time was pushing math markup and a few other things that people outside academia didn't particularly care about. Gazpacho 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you admitted your POV on Gnetwerker's talk page. And vis. Netscape, you can believe what you want, but it is all in the actual federal court testimony: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] -- what more do you want? -- Anomicene 22:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I want the article not to suggest that Netscape was an open-standards saint, because it wasn't. If you've found all these other variants, isn't that just more reason to move back to E&E? Gazpacho 23:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't about Netscape, it is about Microsoft's policy, and the evidence of it. The article doesn't say Netscape was a standards angel, or anything else other than what the court testimony says. If you have POV to add about Netscape, go to their page and add it there. -- Anomicene 23:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree adding a bogon alert: It's perfectly normal to get more hits for "foo" than for "foo, bar" or "foo and bar" etc. The phrase here isn't "embrace and extend" used in various contexts, but "embrace, extend and extinguish" or its variant with serial comma. I've seen it in the wild (outside Wikipedia) by various authors several times, and of course it's mainly used in opposition to MS. It's a term like "terror", terrorists would prefer other terms for their activities. -- Omniplex 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"It's a term like "terror", terrorists would prefer other terms for their activities" - ahhh, but you see that is in fact a POV. I'm sure if you were to look at Osama Bin Laden and the discussion surrounding that you'll see that the article never claims that OBL is a terrorist itself without attribution for that very reason. "I've seen it in the wild (outside Wikipedia) by various authors several times, and of course it's mainly used in opposition to MS" exactly, that is exactly what a point of view is and that statement is rather self-evident of the current page name. So, what I want to know is is the extinguish extension used consistantly by both sides, or is it mainly relegated to the anti-MS persuasion (such as slashdot), and if not, which is used more consistantly by both sides? I'm confident we can work together for a solution. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 09:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is The Economist (conservative British financial magazine) good enough for you[14]? There are literally hundreds of other references to its use in mainstream journalism. You can't seriously expect a phrase which is (I think everyone agrees) intended as a criticism to be used "equally by both sides" -- that is silly. There may be a legit MS strategy lurking there (rather than an attempt to whitewash an embarrassing one), but that is another story. -- Gnetwerker 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt the variant is widely used, but surely an article title should be the basic phrase, and not one arbitary variant therof? If you have sayings like "foo bar", "foo bar X", Foo bar Y", surely the correct thing to do is label the article "foo bar" and mention the variants within it? That way every phrase has one degree of separation from the title, whereas if you call it "foo bar X", "Foo bar Y" is twice removed. For a phrase with a family tree, I think you should pick the parent, and list its children, rather than pick on one particular child, and talk about its parent and siblings. Regards, MartinRe 16:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The "original" phrase is probably not the shortest. Unless you can prove that it is original, it would seem that the most complete phrase, rather than the one being promoted by Microsoft apologists and cronies, would be best. -- Anomicene 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean proof like the court transcript mentioning that "EMBRACE, EXTEND,EXTINGUISH." "WAS KIND OF A PLAY ON THEIR PUBLIC STRATEGY OF LOVE AND EMBRACE AND EXTEND" (verbatim quote)? This would seem to clearly indicate that e&e is the original phrase. PS. I am neither a apologist or cronie, I have no objection to the variants being included, I simply think that the base phrase should be the title of the article. MartinRe 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As a general business strategy?

My main thought with this page is that what if we redid it a bit to describe as a general business strategy that originated at microsoft and is used mainly by them, rather then being used just by them? What do people think? Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe even used just by microsoft, but described more in a general sense is what I'm saying. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Colloquial

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/colloquial - "used informally" -- this does not apply here. -- Gnetwerker 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, maybe so - OK, I took another shot at it. Let me know what you think. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Public vs. internal use by Microsoft

Warrens tweaked the opening para with the edit summary that MS has not used the full term "publically". While this is true, it is contrary to the point of the page. The full phrase was used internally to MS (as sourced by the anti-trust case), and the shorter phrase simply a more acceptable public version of it. The full phrase accurately (if perhaps too colorfully for some) reflects the full strategy. -- Anomicene 00:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a very big problem with this. We don't have any authoritative, encyclopedia-level sources that definitively state that "embrace, extend, extinguish" (not, "embrace, extend, and extinguish", by the way -- this article's title is actually wrong) was an internal Microsoft policy... we have testimony from exactly one person that this was the case, and that's all we've got. Nothing more. Microsoft contested his use of the phrase in cross-examination, noting that the phrase didn't appear in any of McGeady's notes from the meetings he attended at Microsoft. He did, however, write, "embrace, extend, and change the nature of the internet experience."[15] The phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" only ever came out of his mouth in court.

Do you see the problem here? How can we write an encyclopedia article that authoritatively describes "embrace, extend, extinguish" as a term used internally at Microsoft if there's no documented, verifiable evidence that this is the case? Wikipedia is not here to editorialize, or to state things as fact that cannot be clearly proven as such. At best, we can characterize the term as something that McGeady said as part of court testimony -- verbal testimony is not, in and of itself, fact! My edits to the article make this characterization clear, so I've restored it to that version. If you want to revert it back to your preferred version where the phrase "was a term used internally at Microsoft", produce concrete evidence that the term was used internally at Microsoft. Nothing short of this is acceptable. Our goal here is to write an accurate encyclopedia with verifiable sources, not espouse opinions, even if we are convinced those opinions are fact. Warrens 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This has previouosly been covered in this talk page. There is no basis for a change. You (Warrens) are not introducing new evidence, just a POV. -- Gnetwerker 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the verifiable source, then? It's not in the article. Warrens 02:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A witness, in Federal court, under oath, testified that Microsoft used the term internally, a statement Microsoft did not refute. Case closed. -- Gnetwerker 02:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not "case closed". First of all, the guy could be lying or recalling information incorrectly. Second of all, testimony in court is not verified fact. We can verify that he gave this testimony in court, yes, but one guy saying something in court, under oath, doesn't make it verifiable fact! Remember, Bill Clinton once said under oath, "I want you to know I did not have sexual relationships with this woman, Monica Lewinsky," and we all know how that turned out.

What I'm asking for here is more than one source. Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Check_multiple_independent_sources and you'll see why. Can you provide another source of this claim that this was an actual internal Microsoft policy? I tried a few years ago (when I got into an debate with a friend over this very subject) and neither him or I could do it -- to a one, every trail of breadcrums came down to the part of the testimony linked in the article, and this (which could be considered a refutation of sorts):

17 Q. YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, MR. MCGEADY, THAT 18 MR. MARITZ, OR SOMEONE FROM MICROSOFT, USED THE PHRASE 19 "EMBRACE, EXTEND AND EXTINGUISH," DID YOU NOT? 20 A. YES, I DID. 21 Q. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOUR NOTES SAY, IS IT? 22 WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE OF 23 YOUR NOTES UNDER THE HEADING "MARITZ INTERNET OVERVIEW," 24 UNDER THE HEADING "APPROACH." 25 AM I READING YOUR NOTES CORRECTLY TO SAY, 1 "EMBRACE, EXTEND AND CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE INTERNET 2 EXPERIENCE"? 3 A. THAT'S WHAT THE NOTES SAY, YES. 4 Q. YOU DON'T SEE THE WORD "EXTINGUISH" ANYWHERE IN THESE 5 NOTES, DO YOU, MR. MCGEADY? 6 A. THIS IS THE PHRASE THAT I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN DOWN FROM 7 THE PRESENTATION MATERIAL. AND, AGAIN, THE COLORFUL 8 COMMENTS THAT WERE ADDED TO THIS, I DIDN'T FEEL I NEEDED TO 9 ADD THEM TO THIS. THERE IS NO DANGER THAT I WOULD HAVE 10 FORGOTTEN THEM. 11 Q. YOU DIDN'T NEED TO ADD THEM TO YOUR NOTES, BECAUSE YOU 12 MADE THEM UP LATER, DIDN'T YOU, MR. MCGEADY? 13 A. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE, AND I RESENT THE IMPLICATION.

[16]

I'm of the belief that there is no other source for this phrase, either because the guy made it up (possible but unlikely) or it never got out (also possible and more likely). Whatever. It's not our place to investigate or evaluate whether McGeady is right or wrong; it's our place to accurately state what information is available. That's what Wikipedia does. Surely you agree with that. Warrens 02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you are accusing McGeady of perjury in Federal court, the statements above (you've left out the direct) sounds conclusive. You need to produce some evidence that he was mistaken. Many people at Intel, Microsoft, and elsewhere were aware of this -- your argument that it wasn't used is disingenuous. You are trying to produce a pro-Microsoft whitewash which meets your interpretation of sourcing rules but is actually wrong. -- Anomicene 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Determining "right" from "wrong" is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, however, are cornerstone principles. I personally don't care that much whether Microsoft used the term internally or not; what I do really care about, however, is that information presented in Wikipedia articles is accurate based on the given sources. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, another cornerstone Wikipedia principle. As your editorial contributions to Wikipedia have been strictly confined to this one specific subject, I'm going to assume that you don't fully understand the true importance of these principles. Instead of making accusations of "whitewash", how about you step up to the plate with actual, verifiable sources other than some guy's testimony in court? If you're right, this should be easy, yes? Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a guideline that applies to this article as much as it applies to every other article on the encyclopedia; you can't get around this basic fact by calling other contributors names. Warrens 12:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This reference attributes it directly to MS in one use. I'll go look at the various other books written on the subject. I'm sure one or more of them attribute it to MS in this way as well. But I put in "allegedly" for now to end te revert war. -- Gnetwerker 17:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Office formats?

For example, Microsoft Office has long allowed users to import WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 files, but saving an Office document to those formats may omit some Office-specific features of the documents.

But, at the time this remark was relevant,

• could those Office-specific features be supported by the format at all?
• are these features mandatory?

Only if both of these questions can be answered with "yes" is this an example of EEE. Otherwise, I don't see how you can call offering a new document format with more capabilities than an old one "extinguishing", especially if you support two-way conversion. We need a more concrete example. 194.151.6.67 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing this comment from the article as I, too, don't believe it supports EEE --Thenickdude 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Firefox vs IE7

"New Internet Explorer for Windows Vista will feature 'tabbing' system quite similar to that of the Firefox browser, but with added preview feature for every tab." How is this embrace/extend/extinguish? Compatibility is completely irrelevant, it's just competition on features. --Nephtes 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and this should be removed. (Not to mention that Firefox isn't the only other browser with tabs). —DemonThing talk 16:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Nephtes 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there was something else the author might have been getting at here. I've thought about it myself. It's the idea that Embrace and Extend can be applied, at a higher level, to a concept rather than a concrete implementation. Microsoft was Embracing and Extending the concept of tabbed browsing. They've done similar things too, for instance the OOXML document format could be seen as embracing and extending the concept of a standardized document format (the target for elimination being, of course, ODF). 75.162.114.173 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Imagine, If you created a new web browser with tabs, but did like MS, except made the tab strip dock-able, Would that be EEE too? I think this is normal software development. Competition is a good thing. And yeah, I think Opera had tabs before Firefox.. Maybe not the first one though. Not sure. I guess that's not really the point. And as for OOXML, Now that they're going to support ODF, I'm not so sure that will be an example either (Unless the support for ODF is poor). Just my 2 cents. Nmn (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Added Counter criticism for NPOV enhancement

NPOV seems to call for some counter-balance here, hence the addition. It can use some rewording and sourcing, but the basic ideas are legitimate. Please note that this it represents alternative viewpoints repudiating the underlying validity of the EEE theory itself. It is *not* a substantive review/justification/characterization or claim about the specific practices of any individual company. Please consider these points before deciding whether to embrace, extend or exterminate the addition ;). drefty.mac 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

* the long-term market viability of individual products and features is highly uncertain, thus requiring all firms to embrace a wide variety of new developments just to stay relevant in the marketplace;

OK .

* the rapid pace of change, combined with highly differentiated consumer preferences,requires the ability to extend existing standards, which often progress too slowly;

What ? standards (i mean de jure standards ) exists to guarantee interoperability ; waht if LINUX / BSD /Sun / MS would each extend TCP/IP because 'the standards progress to slowly'

* the novelty and variety of possible innovations far outstrips the production capacity of the workforce, thus requiring prioritization and use of pre-existing proprietary extensions in order to enhance new products while still benefitting from legacy code; and products and product features are immediately extinguished when they become obsolete

"the production capacity of the workforce " is hard to quantify , when speaking of software ; i aggre that reusing old code is common . However, product and product features are NOT extinguished when new versions come out. there is a lot of low-cost software with no new features thatr is still for sale. Dbiagioli 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dbiagioli, I think there are 3 main issues here: 1) the independent factual merits and validity of each 'counter-criticism'; 2) the extent to which each counter-criticism is sufficiently noteworthy to justify mentioning in the article; and 3) the extent to which including *any* counter-criticisms enhances the NPOV of the article.

For 3), I will just assume we can agree NPOV improves with inclusion (if not let me know). For 2), I think this is an open question TBD by the natural progression of the article, but I think the addition as-is represents at least a good first draft of the main points. For 1), although you raise very good questions (which I address elsewhere) I think the individual merits of each point is a matter left to the opinion of the reader, just as the individual merits of arguments in a lawsuit is a matter left to the jury. The judges (aka, we the editors) are responsible only to make sure each side gets to present its arguments, (as long as they are relevant and admissible).

I guess there *is* some overlap between 1) and 2), so I do address your questions directly, if only to clarify what *some* have claimed as 'counter arguments' to EEE. Again, these are not neceesarily views I agree with personally, and are not to bash or support MSFT, or anyone else; just added fodder to boost NPOV (see: User:Dreftymac#EmbraceAndExtend)

The problem with this section is not that the article should not contain other viewpoints (indeed, it is short of them), but that it is completely unsourced, and most likely completely original research. I will come back and try to find some sources for it if no one else does, but have commented it out in the meantime. -- Gnetwerker 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not original research, but admittedly it will benefit from citations. One issue is how to provide citations to widespread views within some segments of corporate subculture, (which are, by their very nature, not subject to academic review, and not amenable to completely public disclosure because of trade and strategic reasons).dr.ef.tymac 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Originally, I included the counter-views because: 1) NPOV and balance; and 2) they represented fairly widespread claims (although perhaps contestable on the merits). Belatedly, I am adding some citations, strictly for the purpose of meeting the bare minimum proof of non-original research, and because the content has been removed. Additional citations are still needed, but this is at least a start.dr.ef.tymac 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the citations you provided don't work. First, the Congressional testimony from the lawyer for the Entertainment Software Association is completely off-topic to the statement you attributed to her. Her testimony does not contain the words "standard" or "embrace" or anything remotely related to this article. The testimony was about the DMCA, a topic completely unrelated. The second reference, to the developer site "Webmonkey", was also not on target, and even if it was, it does not meet the test for a reliable source. The answer to your query above about how to cite "widely-held views", is that you need to find someone saying that they hold them, and doing so in a reliable source, for example, the New York Times, the Economist, etc. Even if the ESA's lawyer was testifying on-topic, you would have needed to say "Debra Laywer, hack for the ESA, said in testimony ... blah, blah, blah". -- Gnetwerker 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you are now addressing the credibility of citations, and not the merits of the added NPOV content itself, I will re-re-insert the NPOV content, and invite you to address any apparent citation deficiences in the section indicated below. Also, please note, that you: 1) reverted edits that were in progress and ongoing (still adding more cites and indicating direct context that explains relevance); and 2) assessed material in a time span that surpasses ordinary human ability to actually read what was being cited; and 3) introduced terms like hack for the ESA which appear inconsistent with NPOV principles. For these reasons, I request (if any further averse action is taken) that this section be contested, instead of summarily deleted.dr.ef.tymac 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't attribute any statement to the lawyer. The citation is proof of the underlying claims of market realities that motivate firms to adopt a specific strategy. The citation is to the remarks of a highly-placed industry insider giving testimony about strategic motivations for an entire industry segment, and it is part of the public record. This is directly relevant to the article (and NPOV) because it shows non-EEE-motivated justifications for companies that put out a wide variety of software titles, even though not all those titles are profitable dr.ef.tymac 21:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

citations in support of NPOV

Please use this space to: 1) Indicate any claims that citations are not in support of the text; 2) Provide support for those claims; and 3) Provide support for the specific action taken on the basis of 1) or 2) above. I noticed that someone reverted an NPOV enhancement edit, almost instantaneously after citations were added. The timing of this action coincided with a timeframe that almost guarantees the person did not actually read (in its entirety) the cited material. Therefore, additional justification is requested here.dr.ef.tymac 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I certainly did read the citation. Here is the opening para:

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to discuss H.R. 107, the "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act." I appear on behalf of the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). I joined ESA in January of this year, after serving as counsel on the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property for the past seven years. It is an honor to testify before you, Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Members of the Subcommittee, on these important issues.

it goes on to say

ESA strongly opposes H.R. 107 because it will substantially harm the entertainment software industry in two ways: 1) it eliminates the protections created by Congress in the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)" for technological measures which video game publishers use to protect their products against unauthorized use; and 2) it will stifle the growth of the digital marketplace through unnecessary government regulation of the labeling of media products instead of allowing private industry to inform consumers of the permissible uses of their products.

How is that relevant to this Wikipedia article? -- Gnetwerker 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits are ongoing, thank you for citing assume good faith, as I do not intend to deviate from the spirit of that principle, and moreover, hope it is applied reciprocally. The opening paragraph was not the specific section being cited in support of the NPOV upgrade. This is a matter that would have been made more apparent if the continuity of the ongoing edits had not been interrupted.dr.ef.tymac 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Addressing relevance of NPOV citations:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/05122004hearing1265/Rose1993.htm

Our industry makes a tremendous investment in its intellectual property. For an ESA member company to bring a top game to market, it often requires a team of 20 to 30 professionals ... games enjoy a very short commercial window ... only a small percentage of game titles actually achieve profitability, and many more never recover ... revenue required to sustain the enormously high creative costs necessary to produce commercially profitable video games.

This authoritatively supports:

• long-term market viability of product offerings is an industry-wide and significant concern
• range of product offerings is more important than individual titles

The content about the DMCA was not the focus. Moreover, the fact that this industry insider mentions these market realities in the context of the DMCA demonstrates that these are more than just narrow considerations that companies use as excuses for ignoring or extending standards. The fact that this is about DMCA enhances the credibility of this NPOV inclusion, because it shows these concerns are more than just excuses to avoid standards compliance.dr.ef.tymac 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.webmonkey.com/webmonkey/98/43/index0a_page2.html?tw=archive

... Responding to customer demand for visual control in HTML, Netscape added the <FONT> tag to its Navigator browser. ... Cascading Stylesheets had been extensively discussed at that time, Netscape snubbed the standards process and took the easy route ...

This supports:

• A specific example of a company bypassing standards with its own extension
• A non-original commentary that presents this strategy as a response to demand; and
• A non-original commentary that presents this strategy outside the intent of EEE

As far as this not being a reliable cite, that viewpoint is contested here. Please present formally any 'test' that you applied (which this cite does not meet) and address why it is not adequate to meet the specific points it is intended to support.

http://news.com.com/IE+5.5+angers+Web+standards+advocates/2100-1023_3-243144.html

"Standards committees work on their own schedule," said Rebecca Norlander, group program manager for IE. "No company is going to want to wait until the standards bodies are through.

This supports:

• Everything indicated as supported by the webmonkey cite
• Non-original commentary claiming motivations outside the intent of EEE

Please address the credibility of citations by contesting the citations themselves, and not by deleting the NPOV upgrade. Even though the underlying factual merits may be debatable, the threshold for "verifiability, not truth" has been met by these citations. Unless you can thoroughly discredit the authenticity of the material cited, please leave the material in the article (which otherwise would have *zero* NPOV counter-balance).

I'll probably give Gnetwerker a heart attack just to say this, but he's absolutely right... if we're going to include counter-criticism of "embrace, extend and extinguish", it needs to address the idea specifically as it relates to Microsoft. That's the original context of the phrase, and counter-criticism would need to talk about how Microsoft didn't actually engage in the practice as described by its detractors... or, perhaps more easily, it doesn't do it anymore. The content you're bringing to the encyclopedia is reasonably good stuff, and your efforts are appreciated -- really! -- but it's vital that we keep articles focused on the subject at hand, instead of drifting off into philosophical analysis. -/- Warren 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker never mentioned addressing EEE (as it relates specifically to Microsoft) as one of the deficiencies in the material I proposed. Nevertheless, even adding that concern to the list of possible deficiencies:

• that concern is met by the counter-example presented in the IE cite (see above)
• Netscape, which also "bypassed standards" by introducing HTML extensions (like the FONT tag) demonstrates non-EEE-motivated actions that might have been called EEE (but weren't)
• none of the deficiencies mentioned by Gnetwerker nor Warrens directly address why the entire NPOV upgrade should be :::*completely deleted* from the article, instead of just qualitatively enhanced. As it stands now, the article is lopsided
• it seems enough to note that 1) counter-explanations for the EEE-motivation exist; and 2) those counter-explanations are authoritatively and historically demonstrable with good citations (which I have added and have yet to be directly discredited)
• it is not 'philosophical drift' to demonstrate that the EEE claim (against Microsoft) can be (and has been) explained away as being a strategically sound and legitimate business decision for producing software *used by more firms than just Microsoft*
• at the very least some portion of the NPOV upgrade should be retained in the article

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs)

As my heart seizes and stops beating, with my last breath I gasp .... Thank you, Warren :-) -- Gnetwerker 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

2006-11-07 15:14:15 new NPOV upgrade

Re-edit and improve NPOV upgrade with:

• blatantly obvious connections between text and cites
• Microsoft-specific context
• precise and on-target examples

If there are any remaining issues, please address them here in discussion before modifying the content upgrade. Thanks!

By the way, am glad my contributions are appreciated, and have enabled some beneficial side effects :) It's always good when people choose a viewpoint based on the independent merits of a position, rather than the person presenting it. I do hope, however, you folks can learn how to agree with fewer incidents of catastrophic organ failure ;) dr.ef.tymac 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad citations

I requested a citation for the first sentence of the article (emphasis added):

"Embrace, extend and extinguish"[1], also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate"[2], is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice alleged[3] Microsoft used internally to describe their strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

None of the cited references (1, 2, or 3) claim that the U.S. Department of Justice alleged that Microsoft used the terms "embrace, extend, and extinguish" or "embrace, extend, and exterminate" internally. I'm not looking for an edit war or an argument, but rather I'm looking for an accurate citation. Mikedotnet 05:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This was added some months by someone whose sole purpose on Microsoft-related articles is to add criticism. I've removed the attribution to the United States DOJ, and removed the disputed tag. If you find other specific items, the {{citation needed}} tag on particular statements of the article is preferred to tagging the entire article, as the latter unfairly paints the entire article as problematic. -/- Warren 06:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S. DOJ "PLAINTIFFS' JOINT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT - REVISED"[17], the Government states, in para 91.3.2, page 226, "Paul Maritz also explained to Intel representatives that Microsoft’s response to the browser threat was to “embrace, extend, extinguish”; in other words, Microsoft planned to “embrace” existing Internet standards, “extend” them in incompatible ways, and thereby “extinguish” competitors."[18], and cites testimony from McGeady as well as two other Intel employees, Russell Barck and Rob Sullivan (who were Intel's Microsoft sales reps). I have corrected the citation and reinserted the part about the DoJ. -- Gnetwerker 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

XAML/Silverlight

Would XAML/Silverlight be considered examples of EEE? heqs 08:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. Since Silverlight has very little market penetration, it doesn't seem to have gotten through the process yet (if it is even their intention of course). Masterhomer File:Yin yang.png 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a good example of bad research

It doesn't even mention the publicly available source of "embrace and extend" in the email from J Allard to Maritz and other Microsoft executives at http://www.microsoft.com/about/companyinformation/timeline/timeline/docs/di_killerapp_InternetMemo.rtf.

In this memo, Allard called it "embrace, extend then innovate". It is a fairly technical document with a positive tone which could have mutated into a darker message in the minds of executive marketing cynics such as Maritz, and wide-eyed and clueless outsiders such as McGeady. BTW, McGeady's notes match the message of the memo.

Anyway, you Wikipedia working ants now have more work to do. This article is a very good example of how passion (against or for a subject) eats up energy that could have been used to do the basics: RESEARCH THE SOURCES.

75.55.117.117 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified the article to give you a headstart in including J Allard's memo. This modification should also ring the bells of Wikipedia's amateur, sometimes ignorant but always dedicated editors to come and take a look. Now you go to work!

70.253.92.200 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I was curious why Gnetwerker and Anomicene had been deleted, and found out that they were actually the same (by a process euphemistically called in Wikipedia as "sockpuppet" - the rest of the world calls it plainly lack of ethics). Considering that, the voting on renaming the article ("Move back to "embrace and extend") should be invalidated and done again since this guy voted twice (frankly, I had never heard of "embrace, extend and extinguish" before this article).

76.203.240.119 20:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple more for this pitiful example of bad research: I was intrigued by the "strategy 3 phases" as they don't seem to make much sense as described. I researched all the references, one by one (yeah, I had nothing else to do today) and couldn't find those three phase descriptions in any of them. I started to look for previous versions of the article to find out when they were introduced and voilá: it's in the original version from 2001 (modified extenuously it seems to what it looks now).

The thing is: as they are, those phase descriptions are original research. Somebody concocted those definitions from thin air and hearsay. The only source that dabbled in establishing a definition was Robert Alepin's Expert testimony. Still, he doesn't match what the current article says, and in his testimony it's clearly shown that his description is his interpretation of what supposedly was being said at Microsoft.

I totally think it is possible that some cynics within Microsoft distorted the original "embrace, extend, innovate" into "embrace, extend, extinguish". After all, America is the country where dilapidating company policy is a norm: we laugh and poke fun at it (don't tell this isn't true, hypocritical reader: this is Dilbert's country). And after the joke was going on, some cynics caught it on the competition side (yeah, McGeady was competition. I learned it today by reading ALL of this article's references) and regurgitated as having been told that this was Microsoft's official company policy. Very convenient.

As I said before, I can even concede that a machiavellian marketing executive (if Maritz would fit the category) might have gotten the dark side of the joke and made it into his own world domination strategy. But whenever I get to a conspiration theory following any such arguments, I am reminded by a simple phrase from Napoleon that the world is usually more prosaic. He said "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". If it would be Maritz's stupidity in thinking that such strategy would actually work, or McGeady's stupidity in thinking that this probable joke would be for real, I don't know which.

And stupidity is the second point of my post. There is a sign in this discussion page saying that "This page was cited by Harvard Law Review". Hopefully it was to bash about its lack of research objectivity. Otherwise, their reference certainly fits the "stupidity" label.

75.63.5.203 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

i've added a new reference that describe the three phases and changed the wording a little bit .by the Way , napoleon in the end was defeated ; Giulio_Andreotti , who was almost continuously re-elected to the Chamber of Deputies, until President Francesco Cossiga appointed him Senator for life in 1991 , once said : "You sin in thinking bad about people—but, often, you guess right." : Dbiagioli 15:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1) The citation you provided is a weak one as it does not refer to anything else either and only pushes the problem of lack of citations to an external website. They could have created those definitions out of thin air as well. I will leave it as is though and let other wikipedians chime in. 2) Referring to Napoleon's defeat out of context like this is an attack on his merit in trying to undermine my quotation (more specifically, it's a blatant ad hominem fallacy). I need no excuses. Having been defeated in the end by a military blunder along the way doesn't take his merit as a military genious. As every genious, he was unbalanced and in his case it was by excessive ambition. 3) Andreotti is probably right, so following this line of reasoning it only makes it worse for Maritz and McGeady who were therefore both stupid and malicious.

70.253.66.120 05:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

EEE as could be used by open-source companies

I removed the paragraph--the last one, "it is also possible..."--because it seemed way too theoretical and, thus, original research. The citations weren't really good either, and though that shouldn't doom an entry I sort of got the feeling that this paragraph didn't belong here, as it seemed do describe (correct me if I'm wrong) a scenario which has never actually happened, and it had kind of a weird tone where it seemed like it was either praising or condemning free software (and yet not NPOV, odd). Obviously, you can add it back if you think I'm wrong. Here it is:

It is also possible for a copyleft open source company to embrace, extend, and extinguish a proprietary competitor. First, the open source company would embrace a de facto proprietary standard by reverse engineering or otherwise making a compatible open source version of the proprietary product. Upon achieving substantial market share, the open source company would improve their implementation beyond the capabilities of the proprietary de facto standard; these extensions would be copyleft, thereby preventing adoption by proprietary developers. With enough economic resources, the open source company could also patent[19] various components of its program. However, the open source company would license the patents, royalty-free, as long as the licensee's product contains only patents under the same terms, much like copyleft. Eventually, the now-superior and cheaper open source platform would extinguish the proprietary platform, which, unless it becomes open source, would be unable to compete with it due to patent and copyright laws.[20]

What do you think? Is it relevant? Cherry Cotton (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, original research, irrelevant, and silly due to the inherent conflict of interest which would occur, and the shooting-self-in-foot for that OS company, who would lose support of the OS community...

Opera antitrust complaint clarification

It is important to note that Opera did not sue Microsoft, but rather filed a complaint with the EU against them. [21] --Temporitron (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV again - Allard's phases don't match Alleged phases

I had to add the reference to Allard's document last October. Without it this article had the consistency of hearsay at the time.

Here is another pitiful example of bad editing. Temporitron's review on January 10th 2008 of the following phrase shows his/her bias, or that he/she did not read Allard's ORIGINAL memo. From:

"This alleged strategy contrasts with J. Allard's originally proposed strategy of embrace, extend then innovate." 

he/she modified it to:

"Such a strategy differs from J. Allard's originally proposed strategy of embrace, extend then innovate only in how the final step is viewed."

This is implicitly saying that Allard's original intention was to crush competition, when it clearly wasn't. I would recommend reading the document, and not just the quote I added. Allard's purpose seems to have rather been to get Microsoft out of an embarassing situation of being so behind on Internet related matters.

A cursory review of both Allard's and alleged strategies will show that the phases actually don't match on their content. If you read Allard's document, you will see that his first phase is "get to know the technology, don't ignore it" as he was trying to sell the "Internet idea" to oblivious upper management. Allard's phase II is the same as Phase I of the alleged strategy ("adopt standards"). And his phase III was equivalent to phase II in the alleged strategy ("create new standards"). If it were to be any comparison of both Allard's and alleged strategies at all, it would be:

Allard's ---------- Alleged
---------------------------
Embrace  ---------- none
Extend   ---------- Embrace
Innovate ---------- Extend
none     ---------- Extinguish

as there is an exact one step mismatch between the two.

A final, merged strategy could therefore be "Embrace, Extend, Innovate, Extinguish". But that would be original research, and you have to be managing multi-billion dollar companies to put it to test.

I recommend that the phrase should be edited back to "This alleged strategy contrasts with J. Allard's originally proposed strategy of embrace, extend then innovate.", and avoid any personal opinion on the matter

75.55.117.192 (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The older embrace, extend then innovate isn't the topic of this article; toned down and moved to end of "origin" section. --217.184.142.53 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of reference

I removed the "BoycottNovell" reference because a) it is not necessary anyway; and b) It massively fails the WP:NPOV test anyway, and it is not being used as a confrontational primary source but rather to support a point that needs no further support. A blog might be considered WP:RS in some cases, but I'd like to hear why it would be acceptable in this case. I can provide copious evidence of the lack of neutrality offered up by that blog if need be. YorkGentooUG (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand 'neutral': it is not required that every statement on WP is neutral, nor that every source we reference we use is a neutral one. What is required is that we write a neutral article, "by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias".(WP:NPOV) This reference supports the statement above it, i.e. that the there were interoperability problems with some files created by some software. True, it may be a contentious statement, but the counterbalance of it should be some other referenced statement saying that the files produced were in fact interoperable, provided someone else has published that they were. Chipping away at the citations supporting the current statement by deleting them does not make WP more neutral, it just heads towards someone being able to come along in the future and delete the statement, saying it is 'not referenced'.

You also seem to have misunderstood 'reliable source': we should try to avoid primary sources, and people (including organisations) writing about themselves, and strive to use secondary sources, reliably published, where possible. It's true that boycottNovell is not ideal - it is neither a text book nor a scientific journal, but if we wait for one of those on a fast-moving subject such as this, there would not be much article. On the other hand, it is not a blog and is, to some extent peer reviewed in that it has an editorial policy and editors (see [22] and [23]). It clearly has a 'point of view' as you can tell from the URL, but that does not disbar it as a source, it just means that it may only present one side of an argument. Our job includes finding the other side, if there is one.

So, if you want to go on a WP:NPOV/WP:RS campaign, you are very welcome, but please try to do so constructively by challenging unsourced contentious statements, and by adding sourced significant balancing views where they deserve more WP:WEIGHT, and by adding references to existing challengeable statements or adding better references where possible. There is not much to be achieved by deleting existing references to sources you happen not to like or if you do not approve their editorial policy. --Nigelj (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. After consulting with an expert, it seems this reference does violate WP:UNDUE as well as WP:RS. Let's look at the paragraph in question that this is supposed to be "supporting":

ODF Spreadsheet non-conformance: In 2009, Microsoft released Office 2007 SP2, which included support to ODF. As it turns out, simple files generated by Excel could not interoperate with other applications.

The first two references supporting this are Rob Weir's blog. We'll ignore for a second that he's an employee of IBM Corp, and consider him a subject matter expert as he's received plenty of independent third-party coverage on this issue. We'll also assume he's a reliable source, since he works for IBM. The third reference is a ZDNet article, which we'll also consider a reliable one. The fourth reference (in question) simply repeats one of the first two, links to a "tweet" by some unknown guy and quotes "Balrog". Do you know who "Balrog" is? I don't. Let's ignore then the slightly ridiculous photoshopped image of Ballmer (classy) and the overall tone of the post, which even a child would not fail to mistake for anything other than hostility. The only possibly salvageable part of that is a quoted link to Heise Online [24]. Wonder of wonders, we'll add that instead of an indirect link to an irrelevant and hostile rant about the subject that adds nothing of value. What do you say? As for your claims that the site is not a blog, I wonder then what you consider it to be? And editorial control? No such thing. The founder of that website recused himself long ago from the site [25]. Even assuming that simply having two or twenty people listed on a page leads to any sort of editorial control or anything resembling checks and balances. Or perhaps you can point me to something that resembles an editorial policy and example of it being enforced. YorkGentooUG (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The first words on one of the (admittedly self-published) refs I gave above are, '“Boycott Novell” is not a blog'.[26] Nonetheless, I'm happy to replace a ref with a better or more direct one. I'm surprised at your strong words and vehemence pro Novell, though: Most of your contributions so far seem to be the removal of references to 'Boycott Novell' from WP articles.[27] --Nigelj (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "pro-Novell" in any way. I'm against dishonest and extremist FOSS advocacy. YorkGentooUG (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)