Editing Criticism of Microsoft (section)

== Vendor lock-in ==
From its inception, Microsoft defined itself as a platform company and understood the importance of attracting third-party programmers. It did so by providing development tools, training, access to proprietary [[application programming interface|API]]s in early versions, and partner programs. Although the resulting ubiquity of Microsoft software allows a user to benefit from [[network effect]]s, critics and even Microsoft itself decry what they consider to be an "[[embrace, extend and extinguish]]" strategy of adding proprietary features to open standards or their software implementations, thereby using its market dominance to gain unofficial ownership of standards "extended" in this way.<ref name="ZDExecExtinguish">{{cite news
 |url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-512681.html 
 |first=Will 
 |last=Rodger 
 |title=Intel exec: MS wanted to 'extend, embrace and extinguish' competition 
 |publisher=ZDNet 
 |date=November 8, 1998 |access-date=February 5, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061211025455/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-512681.html 
 |archive-date=December 11, 2006 |url-status=dead 
}}</ref><ref name="GroklawAlepin">{{cite news|url=http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070108020408557|title=Expert Testimony of Ronald Alepin in Comes v. Microsoft – Embrace, Extend, Extinguish|last=Alepin|first=Ronald|date=January 8, 2007|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190517044902/http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070108020408557|archive-date=May 17, 2019|publisher=Groklaw}}</ref><ref name="DobbsExtinguish">{{cite news|url=http://www.drdobbs.com/embrace-extend-extinguish-three-strikes/184404225|title=Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: Three Strikes And You're Out|last=Erickson|first=Jonathan|date=August 1, 2000|access-date=May 17, 2019|publisher=Dr. Dobb's Portal|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131212091852/http://www.drdobbs.com/embrace-extend-extinguish-three-strikes/184404225|archive-date=December 12, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="IWKerberos">{{cite magazine
 |url=http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oplivingston.html 
 |first=Brian 
 |last=Livingston 
 |title=Is Microsoft's change in Kerberos security a form of 'embrace, extend, extinguish'? 
 |magazine=InfoWorld 
 |date=May 15, 2000 |access-date=February 5, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070128094803/http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oplivingston.html 
 |archive-date=January 28, 2007 |url-status=dead 
}}</ref>

Microsoft software is also presented as a "safe" choice for IT managers purchasing software systems. In an internal memo for senior management Microsoft's head of [[C++]] development, Aaron Contorer, stated:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016-5197411.html|title=EU report takes Microsoft to task|access-date=June 6, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110616081801/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016-5197411.html|archive-date=June 16, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref>

{{cquote|The [[Windows API]] is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most [[independent software vendor]]s would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead... It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO ([[total cost of ownership]]), our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.}}

More recently, Microsoft had their [[OOXML]] specification approved by the [[International Organization for Standardization|ISO]] standards body in a manner consistent with previous attempts to control standards.<ref name="Groklaw">{{cite web|url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958|title=How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard – Microsoft Style|author=Jones|first=Pamela|date=February 17, 2008|publisher=[[Groklaw]] News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190513080150/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958|archive-date=May 13, 2019|url-status=live|access-date=May 17, 2019}}</ref>

{{Anchor|Secure boot}}
With the release of [[Windows 8]], Microsoft began requiring OEM devices to ship with [[UEFI]] system firmware, configured by default to only allow the execution of operating system binaries digitally signed by Microsoft ([[UEFI secure boot]]). Concerns were raised that this requirement would hinder the use of alternate operating systems such as [[Linux]]. In a post discussing secure boot on the ''Building Windows 8'' blog, Microsoft developer Tony Mangefeste indicated that vendors would provide means to customize secure boot, stating that "At the end of the day, the customer is in control of their PC. Microsoft's philosophy is to provide customers with the best experience first, and allow them to make decisions themselves."<ref name="building-secureboot">{{cite web |url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx |title=Protecting the pre-OS environment with UEFI |first=Tony |last=Mangefeste |date=September 22, 2011 |publisher=Building Windows 8 |access-date=October 17, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120802042640/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx |archive-date=August 2, 2012 |url-status=dead  }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/248342/windows_8_secure_boot_the_controversy_continues.html |title=Windows 8 Secure Boot: The Controversy Continues |work=PC World |first=Katherine |last=Noyes |date=January 18, 2012 |access-date=August 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121005023808/http://www.pcworld.com/article/248342/windows_8_secure_boot_the_controversy_continues.html |archive-date=October 5, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> As such, vendors were required to provide means for users to re-configure or disable secure boot (although devices running [[Windows RT]], a variation of Windows 8 for [[ARM architecture]], have locked firmware where this cannot be disabled).<ref name=warren>{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/16/2710502/microsoft-secure-boot-windows-8-arm |title=Windows 8 ARM devices won't have the option to switch off Secure Boot |first=Tom |last=Warren |work=[[The Verge]] |date=January 16, 2012 |access-date=August 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313130127/http://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/16/2710502/microsoft-secure-boot-windows-8-arm |archive-date=March 13, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="wired-sb">{{Cite magazine |last=Garling |first=Caleb |url=https://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/09/windows-8-secure-boot-sparks-linux-furor-and-a-microsoft-response/ |title=Windows 8 Secure Boot Sparks Linux Furor, and a Microsoft Response |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |date=September 23, 2011 |access-date=August 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120725002533/http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/09/windows-8-secure-boot-sparks-linux-furor-and-a-microsoft-response |archive-date=July 25, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Jon |last=Brodkin |url=https://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult.ars |title=Microsoft mandating Secure Boot on ARM, making Linux installs difficult |work=[[Ars Technica]] |date=January 16, 2012 |access-date=August 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120409040152/http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult.ars |archive-date=April 9, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> No mandate is made regarding the installation of third-party certificates that would enable running alternative programs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/is-microsoft-blocking-linux-booting-on-arm-hardware-3569162/|title=Is Microsoft Blocking Linux Booting on ARM Hardware?|first=Glyn|last=Moody|date=January 12, 2012|work=[[Computerworld]]|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160405170058/http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/is-microsoft-blocking-linux-booting-on-arm-hardware-3569162/|archive-date=April 5, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.computerworld.com/19577/why_microsoft_should_lift_the_possible_ban_on_linux_booting_on_windows_arm_devices |title=Why Microsoft should lift the possible ban on Linux booting on Windows 8 ARM devices |work=[[Computerworld]] |date=January 13, 2012 |access-date=January 27, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120518223506/http://blogs.computerworld.com/19577/why_microsoft_should_lift_the_possible_ban_on_linux_booting_on_windows_arm_devices |archive-date=May 18, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=James |last=Niccolai |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223446/Windows_8_on_ARM_You_can_look_but_you_can_t_touch |title=Windows 8 on ARM: You can look but you can't touch |work=[[Computerworld]] |date=January 13, 2012 |access-date=January 27, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131130956/http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223446/Windows_8_on_ARM_You_can_look_but_you_can_t_touch |archive-date=January 31, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref>