5 ms·

Personally, I'll never forgive them for their practices. They deliberately stifled competition, shafted developers, abused their position, and rubbed it in our

Personally, I'll never forgive them for their practices. They deliberately stifled competition, shafted developers, abused their position, and rubbed it in our faces. There's no coming back from that, and I'll gladly educate newcomers to IT on their ways. Let them die. The new CEO could be the second coming, you can't fix that cancerous attitude that is entrenched. They deserve to become obsolete, at the very least.

debacle 11y ago
Corporations are ships of Theseus.
blumkvist 11y ago
>Let them die. I wouldn't hold my breath.
- criddell 11y ago
  Microsoft isn't going to die, but their enormous influence has eroded nicely. They're a mature, profitable, mostly boring company and I'm okay with that. XBox is pretty hip, but the reset of the company is about as interesting to the general public as Oracle, Cisco, or IBM.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    sigh
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    Microsoft is as hip and alive as Google is. Google is a boring info-utility to most people. The Xbox is absolutely more cool than anything Google has in their pocket, including Android and self driving car experiments.
    - criddell 11y ago
      > Microsoft is as hip and alive as Google is. I would probably agree with that. From a technology point of view, there are things I love about each company. Microsoft's Azure is pretty neat as is Google's Compute Engine. None of that matters to most people though.
yread 11y ago
> cancerous attitude seriously?
- hga 11y ago
  Seriously. Microsoft has an unmatched record of screwing pretty much everyone who did business with them, and otherwise abusing their position in the market. Worse than IBM when IBM was in their position.
  - outworlder 11y ago
    Are you sure you didn't mean "Oracle"? As far as I know, Microsoft deals with their business partners fairly. They don't try to negotiate a deal directly with a big customer and bypass their partners, for instance.
    - hga 11y ago
      I'm talking more about "peers" than what I think you're referring to as "partners". E.g. 3Com as I cite elsewhere, Verizon WRT to the Kin, the company they licensed the start of Internet Explorer from (expected royalty payments never materialized when the gave it away for free), the examples go on and on and on. But I suppose with Balmer the salesman in charge in between Gates and Nadella they'd avoid sales channel betrayals like that.
      - ascagnel_ 11y ago
        With regards to the Kin, I think Verizon shafted MS on that one. The device was good for it's time (something with photos and music targeted at teens that didn't have a full web connection), but Verizon forced you to buy a full $30/mo web plan to use those features (this was back when the web options were $30/mo unlimited plans or no web connection at all). If there was a cheaper connection just for the Kin, it would've done reasonably well as a replacement for the Sidekick.
        hga 11y ago
detaro 11y ago
Sadly, if you use such rules there are not many big tech companies left that haven't done such things...
- jinst8gmi 11y ago
  And continue to do such things... e.g. milking Android handset manufacturers using patents.
- verbin217 11y ago
  I agree. The world needs more granular incentives.
- sounds 11y ago
  False equivalence fallacy. You can wish Microsoft would die, and still use an iPhone. In fact, much of Apple's success can be attributed to Microsoft fumbling the mobile revolution. In other words, people who use Apple may be doing so directly because of how much worse Microsoft was -- due to Microsoft spending their limited resources on zero-sum tactics like shafting their developer ecosystem. Compete or die. (Microsoft seems to act like they have a third alternative, monopolize. They're still immensely profitable so it's understandable that their shareholders are comfortable with their current course.)
  - y4mi 11y ago
    sure, it just makes you an hypocrit.
    - sounds 11y ago
      I personally don't use any iThings. y4mi, do you have concrete examples of what Microsoft has done that has significantly improved end users' ability to run Free Software?
Infinitesimus 11y ago
Out of curiosity, is it fair to assume you use hardware and software by a source you consider more ethical then? (your classification above rules out Apple and Google as well since they've both done less-than-stellar things )
- harkyns_castle 11y ago
  I basically do my best yes, whilst having to earn a living in my chosen field. FreeBSD and Linux where I can advocate them. Part of my current contract is migrating a customer away from SQL Server to Postgres, and it feels good. Automating powershell on aws instances doesn't feel so good, but it's temporary pain.
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    Do you speak badly of Apple and Google whenever possible though? Forget about tech corporations - do you speak out against other non-tech corporations as much as Microsoft or is your hatred especially reserved for them? What kind of computer hardware do you run? Typically, if someone hates Microsoft, they love either Apple or Google. That's been my experience at least.
- baldfat 11y ago
  This is my ehtical chart Apple (Worst Offender but also helped Open Source at times) Microsoft M$ (Middle of the road with it always depending on who you spoke with at the company) Google (Most powerful of the three in terms of control over people's lives if they wanted it, but I seriously think they stumble ethically not on purpose. I believe they try to follow, "Don't be evil" as a whole)
  - _dominic 11y ago
    Google is way beyond "Don't be evil", just look at the google+ forced integration.
    - hga 11y ago
Spooks 11y ago
A lot of the people that were there when practices were at their worse are no longer there. I don't think I would be able to use any form of technology if I was to hold a grudge for every large company that performed some sort of bad practice, with slave labor to privacy issues. Luckily people that perform these bad practices will eventually get ousted and replaced, that's when I proceed with caution.
SCHiM 11y ago
I don't think that's a fair position to take, fair to yourself that is. The company then is not the same as it is now. Enough time has passed since then and now that it's safe to assume that all the people in important positions have been partly replaced, and I'm sure the majority of those who remain are now in different situations than they were back then. I think it's wrong to withhold fair consideration for MS products (specifically) just because they did something you think is wrong years ago.
ladzoppelin 11y ago
But its attitudes like this that drive people toward Ms. Everybody can see that other companies are doing the exact same thing. For example there is actual proof of Apple conspiring to keeping developer's wages low.
anon4 11y ago
You can't forgive a corporation. Corporations aren't people, they have no conscience, no morals and no ethics. The entire concept of forgiving them, or being angry at them or whatever doesn't make sense. It's like forgiving a lion for eating your brother and thinking it won't eat you. It's a lion. It will eat you when it gets hungry. That is its nature.

debacle 11y ago

Corporations are ships of Theseus.

blumkvist 11y ago

>Let them die. I wouldn't hold my breath.

criddell 11y ago
Microsoft isn't going to die, but their enormous influence has eroded nicely. They're a mature, profitable, mostly boring company and I'm okay with that. XBox is pretty hip, but the reset of the company is about as interesting to the general public as Oracle, Cisco, or IBM.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- blumkvist 11y ago
  sigh
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  Microsoft is as hip and alive as Google is. Google is a boring info-utility to most people. The Xbox is absolutely more cool than anything Google has in their pocket, including Android and self driving car experiments.
  - criddell 11y ago
    > Microsoft is as hip and alive as Google is. I would probably agree with that. From a technology point of view, there are things I love about each company. Microsoft's Azure is pretty neat as is Google's Compute Engine. None of that matters to most people though.

yread 11y ago

> cancerous attitude seriously?

hga 11y ago
Seriously. Microsoft has an unmatched record of screwing pretty much everyone who did business with them, and otherwise abusing their position in the market. Worse than IBM when IBM was in their position.
- outworlder 11y ago
  Are you sure you didn't mean "Oracle"? As far as I know, Microsoft deals with their business partners fairly. They don't try to negotiate a deal directly with a big customer and bypass their partners, for instance.
  - hga 11y ago
    I'm talking more about "peers" than what I think you're referring to as "partners". E.g. 3Com as I cite elsewhere, Verizon WRT to the Kin, the company they licensed the start of Internet Explorer from (expected royalty payments never materialized when the gave it away for free), the examples go on and on and on. But I suppose with Balmer the salesman in charge in between Gates and Nadella they'd avoid sales channel betrayals like that.
    - ascagnel_ 11y ago
      With regards to the Kin, I think Verizon shafted MS on that one. The device was good for it's time (something with photos and music targeted at teens that didn't have a full web connection), but Verizon forced you to buy a full $30/mo web plan to use those features (this was back when the web options were $30/mo unlimited plans or no web connection at all). If there was a cheaper connection just for the Kin, it would've done reasonably well as a replacement for the Sidekick.
      - hga 11y ago

detaro 11y ago

Sadly, if you use such rules there are not many big tech companies left that haven't done such things...

jinst8gmi 11y ago
And continue to do such things... e.g. milking Android handset manufacturers using patents.
verbin217 11y ago
I agree. The world needs more granular incentives.
sounds 11y ago
False equivalence fallacy. You can wish Microsoft would die, and still use an iPhone. In fact, much of Apple's success can be attributed to Microsoft fumbling the mobile revolution. In other words, people who use Apple may be doing so directly because of how much worse Microsoft was -- due to Microsoft spending their limited resources on zero-sum tactics like shafting their developer ecosystem. Compete or die. (Microsoft seems to act like they have a third alternative, monopolize. They're still immensely profitable so it's understandable that their shareholders are comfortable with their current course.)
- y4mi 11y ago
  sure, it just makes you an hypocrit.
  - sounds 11y ago
    I personally don't use any iThings. y4mi, do you have concrete examples of what Microsoft has done that has significantly improved end users' ability to run Free Software?

Infinitesimus 11y ago

Out of curiosity, is it fair to assume you use hardware and software by a source you consider more ethical then? (your classification above rules out Apple and Google as well since they've both done less-than-stellar things )

harkyns_castle 11y ago
I basically do my best yes, whilst having to earn a living in my chosen field. FreeBSD and Linux where I can advocate them. Part of my current contract is migrating a customer away from SQL Server to Postgres, and it feels good. Automating powershell on aws instances doesn't feel so good, but it's temporary pain.
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  Do you speak badly of Apple and Google whenever possible though? Forget about tech corporations - do you speak out against other non-tech corporations as much as Microsoft or is your hatred especially reserved for them? What kind of computer hardware do you run? Typically, if someone hates Microsoft, they love either Apple or Google. That's been my experience at least.
baldfat 11y ago
This is my ehtical chart Apple (Worst Offender but also helped Open Source at times) Microsoft M$ (Middle of the road with it always depending on who you spoke with at the company) Google (Most powerful of the three in terms of control over people's lives if they wanted it, but I seriously think they stumble ethically not on purpose. I believe they try to follow, "Don't be evil" as a whole)
- _dominic 11y ago
  Google is way beyond "Don't be evil", just look at the google+ forced integration.
  - hga 11y ago

Spooks 11y ago

A lot of the people that were there when practices were at their worse are no longer there. I don't think I would be able to use any form of technology if I was to hold a grudge for every large company that performed some sort of bad practice, with slave labor to privacy issues. Luckily people that perform these bad practices will eventually get ousted and replaced, that's when I proceed with caution.

SCHiM 11y ago

I don't think that's a fair position to take, fair to yourself that is. The company then is not the same as it is now. Enough time has passed since then and now that it's safe to assume that all the people in important positions have been partly replaced, and I'm sure the majority of those who remain are now in different situations than they were back then. I think it's wrong to withhold fair consideration for MS products (specifically) just because they did something you think is wrong years ago.

ladzoppelin 11y ago

But its attitudes like this that drive people toward Ms. Everybody can see that other companies are doing the exact same thing. For example there is actual proof of Apple conspiring to keeping developer's wages low.

anon4 11y ago

You can't forgive a corporation. Corporations aren't people, they have no conscience, no morals and no ethics. The entire concept of forgiving them, or being angry at them or whatever doesn't make sense. It's like forgiving a lion for eating your brother and thinking it won't eat you. It's a lion. It will eat you when it gets hungry. That is its nature.