Adoptar, extender y extinguir

Artículo originario de la Wikipedia en inglés.

Para el símbolo bursátil de la NYSE, véase, see Sylvan Learning Center.

"Adoptar, extender y extinguir"^[1], también conocido como "Adoptar, extender y exterminar"^[2], es una frase que el Ministerio de Justicia de EE.UU. alegó^[3] que Microsoft usó internamente como descripción de su estrategia para introducir categorías de productos que involucraban ampliamente el uso de estándares, extendiendo esos estándares con funcionalidades proprietarias, y después usando esas diferencias como desventaja de sus competidores. Es una derivación de la frase "adoptar y extender", que apareció en una canción del empleado de Microsoft Dean Ballard dirigida a motivar a la plantilla, y que versa sobre la reorganización de la compañía para poder competir con las compañías de Internet, principalmente Netscape^[4][5].

La variante más usada, "adoptar, extender y extinguir", fue introducida en el juicio antimonopolio de Los Estados Unidos  contra Microsoft cuando el vicepresidente de Intel, Steven McGeady, testificó^[6] que el vicepresidente de Microsoft Paul Maritz usó esta frase en 1995 en una reunión con Intel para así describir la estrategia de Microsoft respecto a Netscape, Java, y la Internet^[7][8]. En este contexto la frase trata de reseñar la fase final de la estrategia de Microsoft según la desveló McGeady, y que no era otra que expulsar a los pequeños competidores fuera de su clientela.

[por traducir...]
The strategy

In most contexts the strategy is a three part process consisting of the following steps:

1. Embrace: Microsoft develops software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
2. Extend: Microsoft adds and promotes features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to remain neutral.
3. Extinguish: Microsoft's extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, marginalizing competitors that do not or cannot support Microsoft's extensions and creating an obstacle to new would-be competitors.

The U.S. Department of Justice, Microsoft critics, and computer-industry journalists^[9][10][11] claim that the goal of the strategy is to monopolize a product category. Microsoft asserts that the strategy is not anti-competitive, but rather an exercise of its discretion to implement features it believes customers want. ^[12]

Examples

With regard to web browsers, the plaintiffs in the antitrust case claimed that Microsoft had added support for ActiveX controls in Internet Explorer to break compatibility with Netscape Navigator, which used components based on Java and Netscape's own plugin system. The plaintiffs also accused Microsoft of using an "embrace and extend" strategy with regard to the Java platform, by omitting the Java Native Interface from its implementation and providing J/Direct for a similar purpose. According to an internal communication, Microsoft sought to downplay Java's cross-platform capability and make it the "latest, greatest way to write Windows applications." Microsoft paid Sun $20 million U.S. in January of 2001 to settle the resulting legal implications of their breach of contract^[13].

There are earlier cases of Microsoft using one-way compatibility with leading competitors to market its products. 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.

See also

• Halloween documents
• Criticism of Microsoft
• FUD
• Network effect
• Vendor lock-in
• Path dependency

Footnotes

1. ^ "Deadly embrace", The Economist, 2000-03-30. Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
2. ^ Microsoft limits XML in Office 2003. Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
3. ^ US Department of Justice Proposed Findings of Fact
4. ^ Rebello, Kathy. "INSIDE MICROSOFT (Part 1)", Business Week, 1996-07-15. Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
5. ^ The Battle Hymn of the Reorg.
6. ^ Steven McGeady court testimony. Retrieved on 2006-03-31. (DOC format)
7. ^ United States v. Microsoft: Trial Summaries (page 2). Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
8. ^ IN MICROSOFT WE TRUST. Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
9. ^ Deadly embrace. Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
10. ^ Microsoft messaging tactics recall browser wars. Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
11. ^ Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: Three Strikes And You're Out. Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
12. ^ U.S. v. Microsoft: We're Defending Our Right to Innovate. Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
13. ^ Sun, Microsoft settle Java suit. Retrieved on 2001-01-23.

External links

• Report on Steven McGeady's testimony
• Analogy: Blair, Arnie 'global warming pact'