4 ms·

Wow, so brilliant to have Bill Gates so he's pro-government intrusion and then the company back Apple. Update: This was not meant to troll. I fell for the mis

Wow, so brilliant to have Bill Gates so he's pro-government intrusion and then the company back Apple. Update: This was not meant to troll. I fell for the mis-attributed quotes to Bill and thought he actually backed the FBI. I stand corrected.

mtgx 11y ago
I think they're only backing it now because of the backlash against Gates. They sure took their sweet time, either way.
- fluxquanta 11y ago
  >They sure took their sweet time, either way. Did they? Do we need to know every company's opinion on every controversial issue related to their business immediately?
  - snuxoll 11y ago
    Large enterprises are also not startups, they don't get to have the CEO publish a blog post within an hour of news like this. PR departments are careful to craft messages and narratives, shareholder value needs to be protected, and legal bases need to be covered.
runjake 11y ago
It looks like you're probably just trying to troll, but to head off additional discussion: Gates has some stuff mis-attributed to him and the very next day after initial reports, Gates disputed reports that he backs the FBI in the Apple dispute: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disputes-report-that-he-backs-fbi-in-apple-dispute http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disput... A better troll might've pointed out the disparity between Microsoft supporting Apple's stances and the circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate that Microsoft actively worked with the NSA to backdoor its services (Outlook.com, Skype, etc)
- themartorana 11y ago
  Maybe Microsoft would like the precedent set in favor of Apple so they can use it against overly intrusive requests for back doors in their products in the future. They may have acquiesced but that doesn't mean they liked it.
- codys 11y ago
  Gates disputed those reports, but he never states he doesn't support the FBI in this case. I think the key take away from that video is: > Gates: With the right safe guards in place there are cases where the government, on our behalf [...] He also dodges the direct question about his position entirely. He's not trying to make his position very clear, but he is certainly angling to support the FBI's position. Lots of references to terrorism in that interview. Edit: from a PR perspective, this does make a lot of sense for MS: use a board member/someone closely associated with them to probe the public's position, then give the public some assurance to ensure they don't all leave for Apple, while at the same time allowing the state to see that MS's support of Apple in this case isn't concrete.
FussyZeus 11y ago
Also Gates consults with Microsoft occasionally and is a large stakeholder but that does not mean Gates speaks for Microsoft, or that Microsoft speaks for Gates. In fact, they disagree pretty regularly.
- quux 11y ago
  He's on the board of directors, which is a bit more involvement than "consulting occasionally." I remember reading that he spends 1-2 days a week working on Microsoft business. That was around the time when Ballmer was leaving and Satya Nadella was taking his place so it may have been a particularly busy time.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    I think that was more for the CEO transition stage than a permanent thing but I could be wrong.
- tdicola 11y ago
  He's a member of their board of directors and for a time was even the head of it. The board has more control than even the CEO so it's safe to say Gates is speaking for the company.
  - nikanj 11y ago
    More power, less control
  - chirau 11y ago
    Was Marc Andreesen speaking on behalf of Facebook when he made those remarks about India the other day? No. Neither was Bill Gates speaking for Microsoft.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    While it's your freedom to hold an opinion that is contrary to factual reality, I'm not sure how useful it is. What does it help you to misapprehend that Bill Gates is a spokesman for Microsoft?

mtgx 11y ago

I think they're only backing it now because of the backlash against Gates. They sure took their sweet time, either way.

fluxquanta 11y ago
>They sure took their sweet time, either way. Did they? Do we need to know every company's opinion on every controversial issue related to their business immediately?
- snuxoll 11y ago
  Large enterprises are also not startups, they don't get to have the CEO publish a blog post within an hour of news like this. PR departments are careful to craft messages and narratives, shareholder value needs to be protected, and legal bases need to be covered.

runjake 11y ago

It looks like you're probably just trying to troll, but to head off additional discussion: Gates has some stuff mis-attributed to him and the very next day after initial reports, Gates disputed reports that he backs the FBI in the Apple dispute: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disputes-report-that-he-backs-fbi-in-apple-dispute http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disput... A better troll might've pointed out the disparity between Microsoft supporting Apple's stances and the circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate that Microsoft actively worked with the NSA to backdoor its services (Outlook.com, Skype, etc)

themartorana 11y ago
Maybe Microsoft would like the precedent set in favor of Apple so they can use it against overly intrusive requests for back doors in their products in the future. They may have acquiesced but that doesn't mean they liked it.
codys 11y ago
Gates disputed those reports, but he never states he doesn't support the FBI in this case. I think the key take away from that video is: > Gates: With the right safe guards in place there are cases where the government, on our behalf [...] He also dodges the direct question about his position entirely. He's not trying to make his position very clear, but he is certainly angling to support the FBI's position. Lots of references to terrorism in that interview. Edit: from a PR perspective, this does make a lot of sense for MS: use a board member/someone closely associated with them to probe the public's position, then give the public some assurance to ensure they don't all leave for Apple, while at the same time allowing the state to see that MS's support of Apple in this case isn't concrete.

FussyZeus 11y ago

Also Gates consults with Microsoft occasionally and is a large stakeholder but that does not mean Gates speaks for Microsoft, or that Microsoft speaks for Gates. In fact, they disagree pretty regularly.

quux 11y ago
He's on the board of directors, which is a bit more involvement than "consulting occasionally." I remember reading that he spends 1-2 days a week working on Microsoft business. That was around the time when Ballmer was leaving and Satya Nadella was taking his place so it may have been a particularly busy time.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  I think that was more for the CEO transition stage than a permanent thing but I could be wrong.
tdicola 11y ago
He's a member of their board of directors and for a time was even the head of it. The board has more control than even the CEO so it's safe to say Gates is speaking for the company.
- nikanj 11y ago
  More power, less control
- chirau 11y ago
  Was Marc Andreesen speaking on behalf of Facebook when he made those remarks about India the other day? No. Neither was Bill Gates speaking for Microsoft.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  While it's your freedom to hold an opinion that is contrary to factual reality, I'm not sure how useful it is. What does it help you to misapprehend that Bill Gates is a spokesman for Microsoft?