3 ms·

Being aggressive is hardly a crime. Slamming them for past misdeeds will hardly encourage positive behavior in the future. I think Microsoft is taking small st

by maratd 14y ago

Being aggressive is hardly a crime. Slamming them for past misdeeds will hardly encourage positive behavior in the future. I think Microsoft is taking small steps in the right direction. Offering Linux on their Azure platform being the latest example. Let's try encouraging that sort of thing, for a less "aggressive" future.

dredmorbius 14y ago
Being criminally aggressive is, in fact, a crime: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm And in the event you've been reading with the comprehension bit set to "off": disavowing their past, and repudiating current similar aggressive actions (IV and UEFI noted, others are out there), would be a big step. Firing Ballmer would help. It's not sufficient (see above). It may not be necessary, though to my mind it is on the basis that people rarely fundamentally change, and a large part of Microsoft's corporate DNA is intrinsically linked to Gates (still Chairman[1]) and Ballmer. Notes: 1. http://www.google.com/finance?q=msft http://www.google.com/finance?q=msft
- pcopley 14y ago
  I believe maratd was referring the present and future, whereas you're linking to things than happened well over a decade ago.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    No, I'm not. The astroturfing against Google has certainly been going on for the past decade. IV/Myhrvold is current. UEFI is current. A number of EU antitrust issues are current. Gaming the office market (no r/w tools available for Android) is current (and Google are now doing a Claytonesque disruptive innovation in that space as they did with Google Docs in the online space). There's a whole side rant about the ills the Microsoft have spawned in malware, spam, spyware, etc., which despite several decades of protestation on the part of the company's apologist, have simply failed to materialize on other platforms to any vaguely similar fraction of a magnitude. My reasoned analysis is that the security issues are driven by engineering design decisions, and the engineering design decisions are driven by business and marketing objectives, which again are a conquer-at-all-costs, scorched-earth, mentality. My conclusion is that a world in which proprietary control of both operating systems and applications markets is held within a single corporate entity is fundamentally untenable, and that F/OSS si a very strong countervailing force (Apple presents an interesting side case that can also be explored). We've heard again and again "but it's better now", but ... it's not. I could go on. I can't go on at length with specific references right now, but you've given me inspiration to do so, for which I give you thanks. The point remains: the company has a fundamental attitude toward competition and exclusive markets. And the boy had cried "wolf" (or rather "but we're different now") far too often a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. But they haven't changed.
- maratd 14y ago
  > people rarely fundamentally change Perhaps you should stop beating them with a stick and offer a carrot? Just a thought.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    http://jonathangifford.com/business-and-leadership/the-loneliness-of-the-chief-executive-officer-louis-gerstner-and-ibm/ http://jonathangifford.com/business-and-leadership/the-lonel... It's not the full story of IBM's 1990s transition, but it touches on some key elements. The change happened with a replacement at the top. Lou Gerstner. And no, in my list of people earning much intrinsic love from me, tobacco company execs don't score high. Money quote, however: “I came to see, in my time at IBM, that culture isn’t just one aspect of the game – it is the game.” He had to change the culture. And he did. There's a lot written on that subject. Makes for interesting reading.

by maratd 14y ago

dredmorbius 14y ago

Being criminally aggressive is, in fact, a crime: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm And in the event you've been reading with the comprehension bit set to "off": disavowing their past, and repudiating current similar aggressive actions (IV and UEFI noted, others are out there), would be a big step. Firing Ballmer would help. It's not sufficient (see above). It may not be necessary, though to my mind it is on the basis that people rarely fundamentally change, and a large part of Microsoft's corporate DNA is intrinsically linked to Gates (still Chairman[1]) and Ballmer. Notes: 1. http://www.google.com/finance?q=msft http://www.google.com/finance?q=msft

pcopley 14y ago
I believe maratd was referring the present and future, whereas you're linking to things than happened well over a decade ago.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  No, I'm not. The astroturfing against Google has certainly been going on for the past decade. IV/Myhrvold is current. UEFI is current. A number of EU antitrust issues are current. Gaming the office market (no r/w tools available for Android) is current (and Google are now doing a Claytonesque disruptive innovation in that space as they did with Google Docs in the online space). There's a whole side rant about the ills the Microsoft have spawned in malware, spam, spyware, etc., which despite several decades of protestation on the part of the company's apologist, have simply failed to materialize on other platforms to any vaguely similar fraction of a magnitude. My reasoned analysis is that the security issues are driven by engineering design decisions, and the engineering design decisions are driven by business and marketing objectives, which again are a conquer-at-all-costs, scorched-earth, mentality. My conclusion is that a world in which proprietary control of both operating systems and applications markets is held within a single corporate entity is fundamentally untenable, and that F/OSS si a very strong countervailing force (Apple presents an interesting side case that can also be explored). We've heard again and again "but it's better now", but ... it's not. I could go on. I can't go on at length with specific references right now, but you've given me inspiration to do so, for which I give you thanks. The point remains: the company has a fundamental attitude toward competition and exclusive markets. And the boy had cried "wolf" (or rather "but we're different now") far too often a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. But they haven't changed.
maratd 14y ago
> people rarely fundamentally change Perhaps you should stop beating them with a stick and offer a carrot? Just a thought.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  http://jonathangifford.com/business-and-leadership/the-loneliness-of-the-chief-executive-officer-louis-gerstner-and-ibm/ http://jonathangifford.com/business-and-leadership/the-lonel... It's not the full story of IBM's 1990s transition, but it touches on some key elements. The change happened with a replacement at the top. Lou Gerstner. And no, in my list of people earning much intrinsic love from me, tobacco company execs don't score high. Money quote, however: “I came to see, in my time at IBM, that culture isn’t just one aspect of the game – it is the game.” He had to change the culture. And he did. There's a lot written on that subject. Makes for interesting reading.