5 ms·

This is like saying "Ford is contributing to car accidents and monetizing the safety hardware" Irresponsible reporting

jacobr1 5y ago
There are at least several ways to continue your analogy though. 1) Cars cause accidents, and modern safety improvements like pedestrian alert, don't make up for the responsibilities manufactures have for their death machines 2) "Features" in new cars, like increased touchscreen usage, contribute to accidents by causing distraction. Better braking or whatever doesn't overcome the responsibility to have better control interfaces. 3) New tactile controls, and popup displays for backup cameras, in some recent luxury cars are reversing the trend in distracting touch-screen interfaces, resulting in safer driving experiences All three examples above are true to some extent.
- RandallBrown 5y ago
  Sure but Ford isn't developing shitty touchscreens because they want to cause accidents so they can upsell you on a more expensive jogwheel. They're developing shitty touchscreens because they're an old car company with little expertise in software UX.
  - jacobr1 5y ago
    Neither is microsoft. They aren't deliberately adding security bugs to their software. They just are doing a crap job of building secure software. You could argue they don't have the right incentives to fix that problem though.
tempfs 5y ago
This is a terrible analogy and you should feel terrible for offering it. MSFT is 100% in a conflict of interest by simultaneously both selling the disease and the 'cure'. The only bigger crime is when companies genuinely believe that paying MSFT for both is a good idea.
dane-pgp 5y ago
> "Ford is contributing to car accidents and monetizing the safety hardware" Or (and I can predict the reaction to this, but it's a thought-provoking analogy): pharma companies coming up with treatments that aren't strong/cheap/scalable enough to eradicate a disease, so the virus evolves to become immune, requiring governments to keep buying more doses.

There are at least several ways to continue your analogy though. 1) Cars cause accidents, and modern safety improvements like pedestrian alert, don't make up for the responsibilities manufactures have for their death machines 2) "Features" in new cars, like increased touchscreen usage, contribute to accidents by causing distraction. Better braking or whatever doesn't overcome the responsibility to have better control interfaces. 3) New tactile controls, and popup displays for backup cameras, in some recent luxury cars are reversing the trend in distracting touch-screen interfaces, resulting in safer driving experiences All three examples above are true to some extent.

RandallBrown 5y ago
Sure but Ford isn't developing shitty touchscreens because they want to cause accidents so they can upsell you on a more expensive jogwheel. They're developing shitty touchscreens because they're an old car company with little expertise in software UX.
- jacobr1 5y ago
  Neither is microsoft. They aren't deliberately adding security bugs to their software. They just are doing a crap job of building secure software. You could argue they don't have the right incentives to fix that problem though.

tempfs 5y ago

This is a terrible analogy and you should feel terrible for offering it. MSFT is 100% in a conflict of interest by simultaneously both selling the disease and the 'cure'. The only bigger crime is when companies genuinely believe that paying MSFT for both is a good idea.

dane-pgp 5y ago

> "Ford is contributing to car accidents and monetizing the safety hardware" Or (and I can predict the reaction to this, but it's a thought-provoking analogy): pharma companies coming up with treatments that aren't strong/cheap/scalable enough to eradicate a disease, so the virus evolves to become immune, requiring governments to keep buying more doses.