4 ms·

> MS is still evil All big corporations are "evil", as in, their decisionmaking is scaled and institutionalized enough to effectively implement the goal of "ma

> MS is still evil All big corporations are "evil", as in, their decisionmaking is scaled and institutionalized enough to effectively implement the goal of "maximizing shareholder value" above what's good for you or society.

mrtksn 3y ago
No, not all companies try to exploit their strength in one area to make me use some other product that I have no interest in. I'm not talking about "hey, we have this product that you might like", I'm talking about "if you want to use this product, you must also use this product". There's also no technical reason for it, sometimes they will let me use it. Not O.K.
- kbenson 3y ago
  > No, not all companies try to exploit their strength in one area to make me use some other product that I have no interest in. I'm not sure of any large one that doesn't. The incentives are aligned such that it's hard for them not to. It's easy to find examples of similar (sometimes almost identical) behavior from most large companies.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Okay, what other company does it? You may say Apple & App Store but that's not the same.
    - tymekpavel 3y ago
      Apple/iMessage/Safari Google/Android/Chrome/YouTube Meta/Messenger/Facebook/WhatsApp ...just to name a few.
      - jrockway 3y ago
        I don't know if Safari is that important to Apple. I have the enhanced data security feature of iCloud turned on, and I can still access my stuff in Chrome on the iCloud web interface (via the auth flow on my phone). It's actually exceedingly well-thought out and a nice bone to throw to Windows users that otherwise use Apple stuff! They could have been Safari-only or Mac-only, but aren't, even for super niche features.
      - makingstuffs 3y ago
        You don’t need to use any of Facebook’s other platforms to use WhatsApp. I’ve not had a Facebook account for nigh on a decade but use WhatsApp as my main messaging app.
    - kbenson 3y ago
      Apple with iMessage onthe iPhone is about as similar as you can get, and was actually at the forefront of my mind when I wrong my comment. It's a chat platform that you have to use their product to be able to utilize.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Name one company of any size that isn’t doing the same thing?
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Valve's a great example. They have overwhelming market share and could have long since tried to tighten the screws to make a buck, and haven't done anything of the sort. They've also launched numerous 1st party systems and hardware that they could have tried to shove on people (Steamdeck, Index, controllers, etc) but, again, have done nothing of the sort.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Valve is worth around 7.7 billion and from the best I can find, it doesn’t have a quarter of the gaming market. How much power could they yield
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        That figure is quite ridiculous. Even if one completely ignores Steam and all of their games/products, even CS:GO alone is worth billions by itself, with millions of concurrent players (and growing) more than a decade after its launch! All that said, I would expect Valve's total immediate-term 'worth' to be much less than it could be, which is the entire point of this topic. The reason companies treat their customers poorly is because it's profitable, but it also has consequences. You see large short to mid term growth in exchange for long term failure. That's why I think it's more typical to see public companies treat their customers poorly than it is for private companies. Generally the "employees" (including board and CEO) of a public company are evaluated on their short to mid-term performance. By contrast private companies, especially ones that remain private long beyond the point of being able to 'cash out' with a public offering, tend to be more focused on the long term viability. So it's expected that their 'value', whatever it may be, would be less than it would be if they acted in a hostile fashion to their users.
        3y ago
osigurdson 3y ago
What organizations are interested are interested in “what is good for you or society”? Even if they start out that way, eventually corruption sets in. I’d rather have companies have a clear profit motive instead of a series of fake motives and increased regulatory capture.

mrtksn 3y ago

No, not all companies try to exploit their strength in one area to make me use some other product that I have no interest in. I'm not talking about "hey, we have this product that you might like", I'm talking about "if you want to use this product, you must also use this product". There's also no technical reason for it, sometimes they will let me use it. Not O.K.

kbenson 3y ago
> No, not all companies try to exploit their strength in one area to make me use some other product that I have no interest in. I'm not sure of any large one that doesn't. The incentives are aligned such that it's hard for them not to. It's easy to find examples of similar (sometimes almost identical) behavior from most large companies.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Okay, what other company does it? You may say Apple & App Store but that's not the same.
  - tymekpavel 3y ago
    Apple/iMessage/Safari Google/Android/Chrome/YouTube Meta/Messenger/Facebook/WhatsApp ...just to name a few.
    - jrockway 3y ago
      I don't know if Safari is that important to Apple. I have the enhanced data security feature of iCloud turned on, and I can still access my stuff in Chrome on the iCloud web interface (via the auth flow on my phone). It's actually exceedingly well-thought out and a nice bone to throw to Windows users that otherwise use Apple stuff! They could have been Safari-only or Mac-only, but aren't, even for super niche features.
    - makingstuffs 3y ago
      You don’t need to use any of Facebook’s other platforms to use WhatsApp. I’ve not had a Facebook account for nigh on a decade but use WhatsApp as my main messaging app.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    Apple with iMessage onthe iPhone is about as similar as you can get, and was actually at the forefront of my mind when I wrong my comment. It's a chat platform that you have to use their product to be able to utilize.
scarface_74 3y ago
Name one company of any size that isn’t doing the same thing?
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Valve's a great example. They have overwhelming market share and could have long since tried to tighten the screws to make a buck, and haven't done anything of the sort. They've also launched numerous 1st party systems and hardware that they could have tried to shove on people (Steamdeck, Index, controllers, etc) but, again, have done nothing of the sort.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Valve is worth around 7.7 billion and from the best I can find, it doesn’t have a quarter of the gaming market. How much power could they yield
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      That figure is quite ridiculous. Even if one completely ignores Steam and all of their games/products, even CS:GO alone is worth billions by itself, with millions of concurrent players (and growing) more than a decade after its launch! All that said, I would expect Valve's total immediate-term 'worth' to be much less than it could be, which is the entire point of this topic. The reason companies treat their customers poorly is because it's profitable, but it also has consequences. You see large short to mid term growth in exchange for long term failure. That's why I think it's more typical to see public companies treat their customers poorly than it is for private companies. Generally the "employees" (including board and CEO) of a public company are evaluated on their short to mid-term performance. By contrast private companies, especially ones that remain private long beyond the point of being able to 'cash out' with a public offering, tend to be more focused on the long term viability. So it's expected that their 'value', whatever it may be, would be less than it would be if they acted in a hostile fashion to their users.
      - 3y ago

osigurdson 3y ago

What organizations are interested are interested in “what is good for you or society”? Even if they start out that way, eventually corruption sets in. I’d rather have companies have a clear profit motive instead of a series of fake motives and increased regulatory capture.