5 ms·

The problem is that (HN) sentiment is generally lagging behind reality -- usually many-many years. There are still tons of comments on HN that refer to the evil

The problem is that (HN) sentiment is generally lagging behind reality -- usually many-many years. There are still tons of comments on HN that refer to the evil Micro$oft as if 2022 MS was the same as the 1991 MS (while it is 'just' a large enterprise cloud company), etc. When anti-<some company> comments peak on HN then the company is usually already very different. So if you're betting on a product / service, then relying on Internet sentiment is generally a bad idea. Analogy: the best time to buy a car from a specific manufacturer is when everyone knows that the manufacturer is only producing crappy cars. Because that's when they're likely doing everything they can to rectify their reputation. (And the other way around.) Examples: French cars manufactured around 2010 have really good quality (especially the PSA models), because they produced crap around 2000 so by 2008 everyone knew that they should not buy a Citroen. BMW's from 2008 have incredibly many quality issues as BMW's reputation peaked around that era, so they reaped the profits that they could (and this was all based on the all-around great cars from a decade earlier).

masklinn 4y ago
That’s a very topical comment what with Google announcing they were killing Stadia two weeks back.
mcphage 4y ago
> Analogy: the best time to buy a car from a specific manufacturer is when everyone knows that the manufacturer is only producing crappy cars. Because that's when they're likely doing everything they can to rectify their reputation. Maybe—or maybe they’re still in the stage when they’re producing crappy cars, and unwilling to commit to the serious changes that would ultimately lead to a better product and better reputation.
jen20 4y ago
Microsoft get schtick from people who know what they are talking about not because of their previous monopoly-abusing, security-insensitive ways, but because of their _current_ privacy-invading, data-harvesting, lowest-common-denominator-accepting approaches to everything. No amount of contributions to other projects is going to overcome that, nor should it, since it is possible to do some things well and others poorly. The (awful) analogy certainly doesn't even hold: my late-2009 BMW is still going strong without a hint of anything beyond routine maintenance, yet according to this screed it should be crap...
thefourthchime 4y ago
As a car enthusiast, I have to disagree with your car analogy. Most carmakers deserve their reputation. While some Land Rovers were even more unreliable when they used BMW engines, and certain models were more reliable because they had more Ford parts, in general, all Land Rovers are unreliable. Has BMW ever been reliable? Yes in the 90s and before, since then? No. They just don't care, they're sold as lease vehicles to people who care about having the newest stuff for 3 years and then move on.
mfashby 4y ago
I'm not sure that Google is in a similar place to carmakers. There are maybe 3 or 4 major carmakers, and their primary business is cars (well, maybe vans trucks etc too). If they stop selling those, the business is dead. There is really just one Google, which has range of quite different products, and it seems they can afford to fail in a lot of markets, but they'll still survive as a company despite that. > So if you're betting on a product / service, then relying on Internet sentiment is generally a bad idea. I don't disagree with this tho.

masklinn 4y ago

That’s a very topical comment what with Google announcing they were killing Stadia two weeks back.

mcphage 4y ago

> Analogy: the best time to buy a car from a specific manufacturer is when everyone knows that the manufacturer is only producing crappy cars. Because that's when they're likely doing everything they can to rectify their reputation. Maybe—or maybe they’re still in the stage when they’re producing crappy cars, and unwilling to commit to the serious changes that would ultimately lead to a better product and better reputation.

jen20 4y ago

Microsoft get schtick from people who know what they are talking about not because of their previous monopoly-abusing, security-insensitive ways, but because of their _current_ privacy-invading, data-harvesting, lowest-common-denominator-accepting approaches to everything. No amount of contributions to other projects is going to overcome that, nor should it, since it is possible to do some things well and others poorly. The (awful) analogy certainly doesn't even hold: my late-2009 BMW is still going strong without a hint of anything beyond routine maintenance, yet according to this screed it should be crap...

thefourthchime 4y ago

As a car enthusiast, I have to disagree with your car analogy. Most carmakers deserve their reputation. While some Land Rovers were even more unreliable when they used BMW engines, and certain models were more reliable because they had more Ford parts, in general, all Land Rovers are unreliable. Has BMW ever been reliable? Yes in the 90s and before, since then? No. They just don't care, they're sold as lease vehicles to people who care about having the newest stuff for 3 years and then move on.

mfashby 4y ago

I'm not sure that Google is in a similar place to carmakers. There are maybe 3 or 4 major carmakers, and their primary business is cars (well, maybe vans trucks etc too). If they stop selling those, the business is dead. There is really just one Google, which has range of quite different products, and it seems they can afford to fail in a lot of markets, but they'll still survive as a company despite that. > So if you're betting on a product / service, then relying on Internet sentiment is generally a bad idea. I don't disagree with this tho.