3 ms·

It is the easiest to assume the worst for sure, but Microsoft is not the same as the Bill Gates era so Im gonna be a cautious optimist on this one. Lets hope it

It is the easiest to assume the worst for sure, but Microsoft is not the same as the Bill Gates era so Im gonna be a cautious optimist on this one. Lets hope it is to promote Azure, and they dont push the OpenAI route when it comes too openess. Which is closed and a big loss for the world and a disappointment

tombert 3y ago
They're not the same, but they're still a for-profit company. 90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil; they were evil because they felt that monopolistic practices were the easiest way to increase their share price. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to try and maximize their share price and so it's hardly unsurprising that they did the infamous Embrace Extend Extinguish, and until regulators stepped in, such practices worked pretty well. Most companies don't get large enough to form any kind of real monopoly, so it's easy to get on a high-horse. It's also easy to act like it was just a product of "those people", but I fundamentally think that it's a natural consequence of a company that has achieved nearly-total market dominance. I have very little faith that a multi-trillion-dollar company is going to prioritize what's best for the world. Fundamentally, I think that if they feel they can get away with it, they'll revert to monopolistic tendencies and try and increase share price. I'm not just picking on Microsoft here either; replace them with basically any other near-monopoly in tech and my criticisms still hold.
- finnjohnsen2 3y ago
  > 90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil You are to forgiving. I don't care too much about the why behind the evil in the software business and this is probably why my rants fall under Godwin's law too often. I won't this time. > They have a responsibility to their shareholders to try and maximize their share price ... but I was damn close. I agree with your whole point about Microsoft. But I don't think it's the same company anymore, I like some of the recent stuff, and I trust their lack of monopoly on the web. For now.
  - exe34 3y ago
    > You are to forgiving I think the point is that companies aren't good or evil, they are amoral non-aligned super intelligences that maximise shareholder profits.
    - foodgradients 3y ago
      [dead]
    - Loughla 3y ago
      Is it the intent or outcome that is the evil? If I am intent on killing a million people, but can't, but a company kills a million people via inadvertent faulty products, which is evil?
      - leplen 3y ago
        If a hurricane kills a thousand people is it evil? It's not really clear whether we're better off trying to treat corporations as moral actors and constantly being surprised when they aren't, or whether we should treat them as amoral quasi-natural processes no one has full control over and construct regulations around them the same way we do for earthquakes.
        jraph 3y ago
        We should still treat corporations as moral actor (without being naive of course) because they need to be accountable for what they do. This is why you can sue a company. You can't sue an earthquake. Some companies try to do the right things too. Bad corporate behavior should not be normalized this much.
        patcon 3y ago
        I like the metaphor, but... a hurricane doesn't write values documents or employee handbooks. These things do inform actions in many orgs, and constrain opportunities to a degree. I disagree with this larger idea (that others here are implying more indirectly) that companies are all the same, and like some force of nature. They are guided and there are better and worse ones. Having said all that, I'm still an anti-capitalist to the extent that one can be one ;)
- bossyTeacher 3y ago
  > I have very little faith that a multi-trillion-dollar company is going to prioritize what's best for the world You don't have to have faith. Why would anyone EVER believe that? By definition, a company is just a profit making machine. People believing that making rich people richer will necessarily make the world a better place are living in a koolaid-boosted fantasy world
joe_the_user 3y ago
The ads I see on Windows desktop machines (and shenanigans with nonstandard Html extensions and browser defaults and etc...) tell me Microsoft is just as eager to leverage it's monopoly status as ever. No doubt the company is cautious about some things now but even in these, it will push the boundaries.
- huytersd 3y ago
  Those ads on the login screen are so cheap, wonder why they would do that.
BirbSingularity 3y ago
They already have removed their commitment to open-source. It's not looking good.
downrightmike 3y ago
MSFT just doesn't say the quiet part out loud these days
varelse 3y ago
[dead]
advael 3y ago
Everyone who has ever bet against Microsoft trying to enclose or eliminate something it takes an interest in has been wrong. Why should this be any different?
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  Are you using Windows Phone running on Nokia to Bing! and decide, email with Hotmail, chat with Skype, updating your Silverlight blog with LiveWriter, navigating with Autoroute? ... nobody else is, the people who bet against all those things were right.
  - advael 3y ago
    So wait, you're trying to interpret me saying "Microsoft tries to close up or eliminate anything it takes an interest in" to mean "Microsoft never loses"? Very different things. You can't trust Microsoft to act in the interest of open-source projects, transparency in general, or the users of any of the things it buys. Not all of their attempts to harm ecosystems or products work, and this has very little to do with whether they win competitions with other tech giants. In fact, sometimes user distrust stemming from their long history of Embrace Extend Extinguish and other user-hostilities has played into their failures. But like most shambling behemoths of companies, their deep pockets allow them to stay the course through many failures
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      You said "Everyone who has ever bet against Microsoft [...] has been wrong", that's not my interpretation, that's your words. Unless you're going to argue that them spending $8Bn on Skype doesn't count as "taking an interest in" or their multiple legal attacks on Android weren't "trying to close up or eliminate" competition? https://slashdot.org/story/11/03/21/2014244/Microsoft-Continues-Android-Legal-Assault https://slashdot.org/story/11/03/21/2014244/Microsoft-Contin... https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/10/01/1936213/Microsoft-Sues-Motorola-Over-Android-Related-Patent-Infringement https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/10/01/1936213/Microsoft...

tombert 3y ago

They're not the same, but they're still a for-profit company. 90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil; they were evil because they felt that monopolistic practices were the easiest way to increase their share price. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to try and maximize their share price and so it's hardly unsurprising that they did the infamous Embrace Extend Extinguish, and until regulators stepped in, such practices worked pretty well. Most companies don't get large enough to form any kind of real monopoly, so it's easy to get on a high-horse. It's also easy to act like it was just a product of "those people", but I fundamentally think that it's a natural consequence of a company that has achieved nearly-total market dominance. I have very little faith that a multi-trillion-dollar company is going to prioritize what's best for the world. Fundamentally, I think that if they feel they can get away with it, they'll revert to monopolistic tendencies and try and increase share price. I'm not just picking on Microsoft here either; replace them with basically any other near-monopoly in tech and my criticisms still hold.

finnjohnsen2 3y ago
> 90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil You are to forgiving. I don't care too much about the why behind the evil in the software business and this is probably why my rants fall under Godwin's law too often. I won't this time. > They have a responsibility to their shareholders to try and maximize their share price ... but I was damn close. I agree with your whole point about Microsoft. But I don't think it's the same company anymore, I like some of the recent stuff, and I trust their lack of monopoly on the web. For now.
- exe34 3y ago
  > You are to forgiving I think the point is that companies aren't good or evil, they are amoral non-aligned super intelligences that maximise shareholder profits.
  - foodgradients 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Loughla 3y ago
    Is it the intent or outcome that is the evil? If I am intent on killing a million people, but can't, but a company kills a million people via inadvertent faulty products, which is evil?
    - leplen 3y ago
      If a hurricane kills a thousand people is it evil? It's not really clear whether we're better off trying to treat corporations as moral actors and constantly being surprised when they aren't, or whether we should treat them as amoral quasi-natural processes no one has full control over and construct regulations around them the same way we do for earthquakes.
      - jraph 3y ago
        We should still treat corporations as moral actor (without being naive of course) because they need to be accountable for what they do. This is why you can sue a company. You can't sue an earthquake. Some companies try to do the right things too. Bad corporate behavior should not be normalized this much.
      - patcon 3y ago
        I like the metaphor, but... a hurricane doesn't write values documents or employee handbooks. These things do inform actions in many orgs, and constrain opportunities to a degree. I disagree with this larger idea (that others here are implying more indirectly) that companies are all the same, and like some force of nature. They are guided and there are better and worse ones. Having said all that, I'm still an anti-capitalist to the extent that one can be one ;)
bossyTeacher 3y ago
> I have very little faith that a multi-trillion-dollar company is going to prioritize what's best for the world You don't have to have faith. Why would anyone EVER believe that? By definition, a company is just a profit making machine. People believing that making rich people richer will necessarily make the world a better place are living in a koolaid-boosted fantasy world

joe_the_user 3y ago

The ads I see on Windows desktop machines (and shenanigans with nonstandard Html extensions and browser defaults and etc...) tell me Microsoft is just as eager to leverage it's monopoly status as ever. No doubt the company is cautious about some things now but even in these, it will push the boundaries.

huytersd 3y ago
Those ads on the login screen are so cheap, wonder why they would do that.

BirbSingularity 3y ago

They already have removed their commitment to open-source. It's not looking good.

downrightmike 3y ago

MSFT just doesn't say the quiet part out loud these days

varelse 3y ago

[dead]

advael 3y ago

Everyone who has ever bet against Microsoft trying to enclose or eliminate something it takes an interest in has been wrong. Why should this be any different?

jodrellblank 3y ago
Are you using Windows Phone running on Nokia to Bing! and decide, email with Hotmail, chat with Skype, updating your Silverlight blog with LiveWriter, navigating with Autoroute? ... nobody else is, the people who bet against all those things were right.
- advael 3y ago
  So wait, you're trying to interpret me saying "Microsoft tries to close up or eliminate anything it takes an interest in" to mean "Microsoft never loses"? Very different things. You can't trust Microsoft to act in the interest of open-source projects, transparency in general, or the users of any of the things it buys. Not all of their attempts to harm ecosystems or products work, and this has very little to do with whether they win competitions with other tech giants. In fact, sometimes user distrust stemming from their long history of Embrace Extend Extinguish and other user-hostilities has played into their failures. But like most shambling behemoths of companies, their deep pockets allow them to stay the course through many failures
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    You said "Everyone who has ever bet against Microsoft [...] has been wrong", that's not my interpretation, that's your words. Unless you're going to argue that them spending $8Bn on Skype doesn't count as "taking an interest in" or their multiple legal attacks on Android weren't "trying to close up or eliminate" competition? https://slashdot.org/story/11/03/21/2014244/Microsoft-Continues-Android-Legal-Assault https://slashdot.org/story/11/03/21/2014244/Microsoft-Contin... https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/10/01/1936213/Microsoft-Sues-Motorola-Over-Android-Related-Patent-Infringement https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/10/01/1936213/Microsoft...