(Edited to add: I am not aware of any statements on WebGL from MS beyond that blog post, but I don't follow those circles, so I'll accept your word that they continued bashing it after CORS was introduced. However, people I'd trust more than either Google or Microsoft employees, like Carmack and various security researchers on HN like Daeken, agreed that WebGl is a security risk, so I disagree that counts as bad behavior on MS's part.)

So why did Microsoft go ahead and include WebGL? Why, because they had to respond to Google who did exactly the same thing that Microsoft was lambasted for doing with IE: pushing proprietary, unsafe technology before it became standardized and forcing other browsers to catch up. But since you work for Google, I am sure you consider Google's actions to be perfectly not "evil"...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/87696-webgl-is-fundamen...

> But there’s more! Not only is WebGL inherently flawed, but Google — one of WebGL’s strongest proponents — even knew about the DoS and cross-domain image vulnerabilities months before they were thrust into the limelight by Context’s report. Not deterred by these flaws in the WebGL spec or its implementation, Google pushed ahead and turned on WebGL by default in February 2011, in Chrome 9.

> As terrifying as that is, we now have to wonder why Google rushed the deployment of a nascent, dangerous technology...

Note that it was enabled before the v1 of the specification was even released. But worse, when I follow the embedded links in the top para, why I do believe they show that you ("you" as in not Google, "you" as in you specifically) were aware of these security flaws before anyone else reported it, and yet you (as in Google) went ahead and enabled WebGL in Chrome by default. And then you accuse Microsoft behaving badly! Really?!

> They are still a bad company that does arguably bad things

I'd like examples of Microsoft "behaving badly", preferably:

1) stuff that isn't religious fanaticism;

2) stuff that isn't driven by vested interests that are not in everybody else's interests;

3) and stuff that I haven't already covered in my linked comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7282162). I hope you do better than the other replies in that subthread.