3 ms·

Perhaps I'm the one misinterpreting your comment, and the others have it right. I'm assuming you mean open as in communication. Apple basically is a stone wall

Perhaps I'm the one misinterpreting your comment, and the others have it right. I'm assuming you mean open as in communication. Apple basically is a stone wall, facebook just spouts empty platitudes, google processes are opaque and unyielding (unless you know a someone or raise a massive community response on social media), but Microsoft continues to be staffed by humans. They aren't a shining pillar of FOSS, but they've taken some good steps in the right direction in the past few years. And of all of them, user feedback, support, and escalation seems to still be handled by people instead of algorithms

bmitc 5y ago
You didn't misinterpret and nailed it spot on. I didn't say anything specifically about open source. While that is a significant part and I personally think Microsoft is doing well, I find that Microsoft are the only ones even mildly open about their communication, documentation, and processes and actually seem to respond to negative feedback, at least more than zero like the other companies. Apple is opaque by design, Google is opaque in a sort of emergent way, and Facebook is opaque in a deceptive way, all three on purpose and working as intended. Microsoft is not perfect by any means, but people get riled up at them all the time for the simplest things and often the exact same things that Apple does, for example. In the particular case of this post, I just can't imagine an Apple employee posting the exact link (on Christmas!) to a bug that they were responsible for to an issue that was posted on a forum. If someone would have simply made an issue on the GitHub repo instead of posting on Hacker News, it probably would have been fixed without fanfare.