4 ms·

I agree. If the outcome is a win for both Microsoft (or any other entity for that matter) and the rest of the ecosystem that's perfect. But they have shown tha

by gerash 6y ago

I agree. If the outcome is a win for both Microsoft (or any other entity for that matter) and the rest of the ecosystem that's perfect. But they have shown that as a corporation they are comfortable playing nasty when it suits them.

brokencode 6y ago
Pretty much every large company will play nasty when it suits them and if they think they can get away with it. That’s why they call it “corporate warfare”, not “corporate hugs and kisses”.
buran77 6y ago
I never found much sense in this line of reasoning. MS as a corporation is an abstract legal concept with a name. Every action taken under this "umbrella" is an executive's decision (or a group's), not the actual abstract corporation doing it. It's fair to assume most of the leadership from '90s MS has moved on. So is your concern with the current leadership or the abstract concept of the corporation? Is it that "they did it once so they might do it again" the real worry? Do we assume the corporation has hysteresis and the executives of today will take similar actions to those of the past because of operating under the same "umbrella" named MS? If so how far back do you go with this record of bad or good deeds? I see a lot of people sort of bragging with being old enough to remember evil '90s MS (so around 35+). How far back do you look at a company to judge them? I can think of a lot of companies who flip-flopped several times because the leadership changed and the market demanded it. So once they go bad do they stay forever bad? Your worry should be MS's current leadership and their ability to execute in the future, not what Gates did 20 years ago. Similarly you don't judge today's Google by their actions of 20 years ago. Saying "I don't trust MS because Gates in the '90s" tells me you might be stuck on the actual name and that's the only aspect that will ever matter to you (a simple "if MS then Bad"). You've seen Google go from do no evil to whatever they are now. Apple from whatever they were to champions of user privacy. MS from whatever they were to embracing open source and such. None of it because corporations are sentient beings with intentions but because of leadership and market imposed necessity. If anything you (and I) are more rsponsible for what MS, Google, Apple, etc. do than those companies themselves. They do what we allow them and what we reward simply because their leadership acts in the interest of profits.
- gerash 6y ago
  There is some continuity to how a corporation acts externally but I agree too much anthropomorphism is pointless.

by gerash 6y ago

brokencode 6y ago

Pretty much every large company will play nasty when it suits them and if they think they can get away with it. That’s why they call it “corporate warfare”, not “corporate hugs and kisses”.

buran77 6y ago

I never found much sense in this line of reasoning. MS as a corporation is an abstract legal concept with a name. Every action taken under this "umbrella" is an executive's decision (or a group's), not the actual abstract corporation doing it. It's fair to assume most of the leadership from '90s MS has moved on. So is your concern with the current leadership or the abstract concept of the corporation? Is it that "they did it once so they might do it again" the real worry? Do we assume the corporation has hysteresis and the executives of today will take similar actions to those of the past because of operating under the same "umbrella" named MS? If so how far back do you go with this record of bad or good deeds? I see a lot of people sort of bragging with being old enough to remember evil '90s MS (so around 35+). How far back do you look at a company to judge them? I can think of a lot of companies who flip-flopped several times because the leadership changed and the market demanded it. So once they go bad do they stay forever bad? Your worry should be MS's current leadership and their ability to execute in the future, not what Gates did 20 years ago. Similarly you don't judge today's Google by their actions of 20 years ago. Saying "I don't trust MS because Gates in the '90s" tells me you might be stuck on the actual name and that's the only aspect that will ever matter to you (a simple "if MS then Bad"). You've seen Google go from do no evil to whatever they are now. Apple from whatever they were to champions of user privacy. MS from whatever they were to embracing open source and such. None of it because corporations are sentient beings with intentions but because of leadership and market imposed necessity. If anything you (and I) are more rsponsible for what MS, Google, Apple, etc. do than those companies themselves. They do what we allow them and what we reward simply because their leadership acts in the interest of profits.

gerash 6y ago
There is some continuity to how a corporation acts externally but I agree too much anthropomorphism is pointless.