3 ms·

> [...] reduce some of the world’s worst inequities. Is it fair to say that 90's and early 2000's microsoft was a great proponent and enabler of such inequalit

> [...] reduce some of the world’s worst inequities. Is it fair to say that 90's and early 2000's microsoft was a great proponent and enabler of such inequalities?

paxys 4y ago
Microsoft was the main driving force behind bringing down the price of computers and software come to a point where they could be in every home and in every classroom around the world. They have done more to educate people in developing countries and offer them a path out of poverty than maybe any other company in history.
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  The main reason microsoft software was ever used in developing countries was because it was easy enough to pirate -- not something the company did "on purpose" that I'm aware of
  - marcodiego 4y ago
    This! And I have to back you on that: “And as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.” [1] [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micropiracy9-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micro...
    - TremendousJudge 4y ago
      oh I had never heard it was an explicit strategy, I thought it sort of happened by accident. good to know
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    We could have just used Linux, which was free, instead of pirating Windows, but we didn't. People in developing countries chose to pirate and use Windows because it ran most of the important apps of the era, namely video games, which were also easy to pirate, and because it ran on any custom built PC from the parts each user could afford to scrap together. It was the perfect storm.
- marcodiego 4y ago
  At one point, I remember windows vista license being a significant price of a new computer. At the same time, microsoft made huge efforts to hurt linux image on the desktop, which could really bring "down the price of computers and software". One may see them as a good "driving force behind bringing down the price of computers and software" for a very limited time. I don't know if the result of 90's and early 2000's microsoft was a net positive to the field. I don't think "They have done more to educate people in developing countries [..] than maybe any other company in history" considering how they also made many governments, institutions and people dependent on their software. This eventually cost these same entities a lot more than needed if there was a healthy competition which always fought against.
  - paxys 4y ago
    What hurt Linux was that it was – and still is – completely unusable for the average non-technical person. Microsoft wasn't the one holding back adoption.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  Been living in Mali for some times, worked in a few African countries. Done charity work there. Created an IT company there. You have it totally backward. IT is NOT helping the poorest part of Africa. Quite the opposite. But it does help us create a lot of BS virtue signaling about all the good we do in Africa. The explanation would take a lot of text, unfortunately and I'm not in the mood for the rant again. But it comes from experience, not from the idealized narrative you have been sold.

> [...] reduce some of the world’s worst inequities. Is it fair to say that 90's and early 2000's microsoft was a great proponent and enabler of such inequalities?

paxys 4y ago

Microsoft was the main driving force behind bringing down the price of computers and software come to a point where they could be in every home and in every classroom around the world. They have done more to educate people in developing countries and offer them a path out of poverty than maybe any other company in history.

TremendousJudge 4y ago
The main reason microsoft software was ever used in developing countries was because it was easy enough to pirate -- not something the company did "on purpose" that I'm aware of
- marcodiego 4y ago
  This! And I have to back you on that: “And as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.” [1] [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micropiracy9-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micro...
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    oh I had never heard it was an explicit strategy, I thought it sort of happened by accident. good to know
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  We could have just used Linux, which was free, instead of pirating Windows, but we didn't. People in developing countries chose to pirate and use Windows because it ran most of the important apps of the era, namely video games, which were also easy to pirate, and because it ran on any custom built PC from the parts each user could afford to scrap together. It was the perfect storm.
marcodiego 4y ago
At one point, I remember windows vista license being a significant price of a new computer. At the same time, microsoft made huge efforts to hurt linux image on the desktop, which could really bring "down the price of computers and software". One may see them as a good "driving force behind bringing down the price of computers and software" for a very limited time. I don't know if the result of 90's and early 2000's microsoft was a net positive to the field. I don't think "They have done more to educate people in developing countries [..] than maybe any other company in history" considering how they also made many governments, institutions and people dependent on their software. This eventually cost these same entities a lot more than needed if there was a healthy competition which always fought against.
- paxys 4y ago
  What hurt Linux was that it was – and still is – completely unusable for the average non-technical person. Microsoft wasn't the one holding back adoption.
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
Been living in Mali for some times, worked in a few African countries. Done charity work there. Created an IT company there. You have it totally backward. IT is NOT helping the poorest part of Africa. Quite the opposite. But it does help us create a lot of BS virtue signaling about all the good we do in Africa. The explanation would take a lot of text, unfortunately and I'm not in the mood for the rant again. But it comes from experience, not from the idealized narrative you have been sold.