| ▲ | mathieudutour 15 hours ago |
| > I don't know if Raycast team even knows about this. I'm part of Raycast, we didn't know about it, learnt about it here |
|
| ▲ | ncr100 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Creepy. Looks like they rolled it back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47573233 Collection of my thoughts which don't really get to a point: - Microsoft owns GitHub, where Raycast is being mentioned thousands of times by their tooling. - Microsoft is a modern popularizer of the infamous phrase, embrace extend extinguish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... - Microsoft has a history of monopoly behavior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... - From an empathetic perspective I hope for the sake of the customers of raycast and for its employees that Microsoft is not into any kind of negotiations with Raycast at the moment. |
| |
| ▲ | BugsJustFindMe 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Microsoft has a history of monopoly behavior I just want to note that the case you link to was 25 years ago. The number of people working at Microsoft at the time who are still working there today is very small. | | |
| ▲ | rchaud 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Microsoft that was prosecuted for monopoly behaviour 25 years ago is definitely not the same Microsoft that owns: - Github - LinkedIn - Activision Blizzard - Xbox - Azure, Sharepoint and Teams w/Copilot embedded everywhere - major stake in OpenAI - a multibillion dollar ad product portfolio (LinkedIn ads, Bing Ads) | | |
| ▲ | TheScaryOne 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | After being told to not integrate Internet Explorer into the OS, they changed the name to EDGE and did it anyway? With the added excuse that it now compromises most of the file explorer functionality, too? | | |
| ▲ | altairprime 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, Edge isn’t Internet Explorer; they coexist if necessary for enterprise and legal reasons :) |
|
| |
| ▲ | QuantumGood 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > "history .. 25 years ago" The comment was brief, and added detail is welcome, but corporate mission/culture often extends over time even with changes in leadership. Partly because of what was accepted in the past. | |
| ▲ | burkaman 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One of those people is the CEO though. | |
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tyleo 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I haven’t clicked through so all I know about Raycast is, “that’s the company that gets shoved into ads by copilot.” Sounds like it’s not your fault but it’s probably doing some brand damage :/ |
| |
| ▲ | delfinom 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | They should probably get a lawyer to send a C&D. | | |
| ▲ | buildbot 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There’s like 100 comments blaming raycast, they should just sue for damages lol. | | |
| ▲ | grayhatter 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Had I not seen this thread, I would have assumed they consented to it, and I'd never willingly interact with Raycast or it's team in any way. I still have a somewhat negative opinion, so I think it's safe to say there are damages. | |
| ▲ | tylerchilds 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As a data point, I consent to be counted as associating raycast with the Microsoft brand and viewing them negatively as a consequence of using pull requests as an advertising canvas. | |
| ▲ | altairprime 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should sue to have the ads removed from the texts they were inserted into, which is a vastly more difficult problem than simply paying some dollars. |
| |
| ▲ | BloondAndDoom 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I hear you, but honestly it’s kind of funny to think a company would send C&D to stop free advertising for them. I’d be surprising to see if any company ever does that, whatever the people think small brands worth they actually worth way less than that. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is it free advertising or free brand damage? (people might think that raycast had consented to this) but as we know from this thread, Raycast didn't consent to this. It might be interesting to see what a lawyer might think of this and if there are enough reasonable claims to genuinely sue for damages (Raycast definitely seek a lawyer privately, just in case) | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jarek83 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Maybe check if you are charged for it |
| |
