5 ms·

One of the comments on the site proper mentions that in light of the actions of the larger tech companies of the past decade, the commentor feels like they were

One of the comments on the site proper mentions that in light of the actions of the larger tech companies of the past decade, the commentor feels like they were unfairly harsh in their judgement of Bill Gates in the 1990s. That's such a dangerous conclusion that's used in politics from time to time. Just because X is worse than Y, it doesn't mean that Y wasn't also bad. Y is only better by comparison. It's as objectively bad as it ever was. Strive for better instead of simply settling for not as bad.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
HNthrow22 8y ago
How is it dangerous? How are you able to equate "I was unfairly harsh in my judgement of X" with "X wasn't bad"? That doesn't follow, it's simply a comparison. Gates and MS anti-trust violations are now standard operating procedure for today's tech giants, the behavior of MS in the 90s looks incredibly harmless when compared to the wildly irresponsible socially dangerous behavior of tech giants today. We seemed to have just collectively forgotten about anti-trust and decided that the natural monopoly of tech services will be the new status quo. But anti-trust is nothing compared to the perils and social consequences of the 'move fast and break things' approach of technology and software today. The Boeing 737max is one recent example, but we're just starting to unravel the social and cultural costs of allowing companies with unprecedented power to shape human behavior and public opinions, dictate what is and is acceptable speech for their platform in the name of quarterly growth. Seems like a reasonable comment and insight to me.
- soup10 8y ago
  It's strange that ms got busted partly for their handling of internet explorer, but at least on windows there was never any restrictions on what 3rd party software was allowed and no obligation to pay Microsoft a 30% tax on sales. Meanwhile Apple has 50 pages of App Store Review guidelines, routinely rejects apps for political reasons. And collects taxes on everything.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    In the 90's Windows had > 90% marketshare of the desktop market and Internet Explorer had > 90% browser marketshare. Globally, iOS is < 25% marketshare. So while Apple holds an app store monopoly on their own phone, you have a comparable alternatives available. Microsoft lost because, "The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs." In retrospect, that looks questionable, but at the time Windows dominance looked pretty unstoppable.
    - mceoin 8y ago
      Why is this comment flagged? Seems reasonable and certainly not rude or inflammatory.
      - kortilla 8y ago
        Because it didn’t fit the narrative that Apple and google are worse than Microsoft. If they isn’t true, what do we do with all of our outrage?
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Maybe because some people on HN don't like to be reminded that their bias against Apple doesn't play out in what the law actually states about monopolies, and the factual market across the globe.
        anilakar 7y ago
        Oh? From my international viewpoint HN is very pro-Apple biased.
        WillPostForFood 7y ago
        You tend to have both vocal advocates and vocal detractors.
- Lowkeyloki 8y ago
  You're right that the irresponsible behavior of tech giants today makes what Microsoft did in the 90s look harmless. But only by comparison. It's dangerous because in this case hindsight is not 20/20. What Microsoft was doing in the 90s wasn't harmless. It was, at the very least, a step on the path that led to the very behavior we're condemning from others now. And besides that, their behavior was objectively harmful.
- analognoise 8y ago
  You had me until in agreement until this: "dictate what is and is acceptable speech for their platform" You build your own platform if you don't like it - free software people do, so can you.
  - HNthrow22 8y ago
    poor phrasing on my part and I think we're in agreement about this, of course companies should have control what goes on their platform, they're not public services - the issue today is they have the power but none of the consequences from potential fallout. Should we really be placing that power in the hands of for profit entities? Regulation is it's own bag of worms, but at least the government is in theory meant to be acting in the interest of the populace vs. shareholders - a key difference especially in dealing with influence/reach/impact of the likes of twitter, facebook, reddit etc
    - analognoise 8y ago
      Ah, so we are in agreement fully. I appreciate the added nuance.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

HNthrow22 8y ago

How is it dangerous? How are you able to equate "I was unfairly harsh in my judgement of X" with "X wasn't bad"? That doesn't follow, it's simply a comparison. Gates and MS anti-trust violations are now standard operating procedure for today's tech giants, the behavior of MS in the 90s looks incredibly harmless when compared to the wildly irresponsible socially dangerous behavior of tech giants today. We seemed to have just collectively forgotten about anti-trust and decided that the natural monopoly of tech services will be the new status quo. But anti-trust is nothing compared to the perils and social consequences of the 'move fast and break things' approach of technology and software today. The Boeing 737max is one recent example, but we're just starting to unravel the social and cultural costs of allowing companies with unprecedented power to shape human behavior and public opinions, dictate what is and is acceptable speech for their platform in the name of quarterly growth. Seems like a reasonable comment and insight to me.

soup10 8y ago
It's strange that ms got busted partly for their handling of internet explorer, but at least on windows there was never any restrictions on what 3rd party software was allowed and no obligation to pay Microsoft a 30% tax on sales. Meanwhile Apple has 50 pages of App Store Review guidelines, routinely rejects apps for political reasons. And collects taxes on everything.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  In the 90's Windows had > 90% marketshare of the desktop market and Internet Explorer had > 90% browser marketshare. Globally, iOS is < 25% marketshare. So while Apple holds an app store monopoly on their own phone, you have a comparable alternatives available. Microsoft lost because, "The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs." In retrospect, that looks questionable, but at the time Windows dominance looked pretty unstoppable.
  - mceoin 8y ago
    Why is this comment flagged? Seems reasonable and certainly not rude or inflammatory.
    - kortilla 8y ago
      Because it didn’t fit the narrative that Apple and google are worse than Microsoft. If they isn’t true, what do we do with all of our outrage?
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Maybe because some people on HN don't like to be reminded that their bias against Apple doesn't play out in what the law actually states about monopolies, and the factual market across the globe.
      - anilakar 7y ago
        Oh? From my international viewpoint HN is very pro-Apple biased.
        WillPostForFood 7y ago
        You tend to have both vocal advocates and vocal detractors.
Lowkeyloki 8y ago
You're right that the irresponsible behavior of tech giants today makes what Microsoft did in the 90s look harmless. But only by comparison. It's dangerous because in this case hindsight is not 20/20. What Microsoft was doing in the 90s wasn't harmless. It was, at the very least, a step on the path that led to the very behavior we're condemning from others now. And besides that, their behavior was objectively harmful.
analognoise 8y ago
You had me until in agreement until this: "dictate what is and is acceptable speech for their platform" You build your own platform if you don't like it - free software people do, so can you.
- HNthrow22 8y ago
  poor phrasing on my part and I think we're in agreement about this, of course companies should have control what goes on their platform, they're not public services - the issue today is they have the power but none of the consequences from potential fallout. Should we really be placing that power in the hands of for profit entities? Regulation is it's own bag of worms, but at least the government is in theory meant to be acting in the interest of the populace vs. shareholders - a key difference especially in dealing with influence/reach/impact of the likes of twitter, facebook, reddit etc
  - analognoise 8y ago
    Ah, so we are in agreement fully. I appreciate the added nuance.