3 ms·

Personally I don't think Microsoft's primary agenda is to produce user-enabling products. Imo their desire is to produce user-hobbling products; products that s

Personally I don't think Microsoft's primary agenda is to produce user-enabling products. Imo their desire is to produce user-hobbling products; products that slow down or preferably reverse the knowledge-empowering potential of computing machines for the average person. It's a political not marketing objective, and you'll never see them admitting to it. You have to analyze their actions not their words to see it. If you assume Microsoft has always been trying to achieve the 'best' product possible, then their development history looks like incredible incompetence. If you view it in the political context of Elites trying to cripple development of 'computing power to the people', it makes perfect sense and reveals a high degree of sophistication in the Microsoft inner management group. Effectively their strategy is to steer development of their products in the most socially harmful direction possible, constantly pushing the boundary of what the market will reject as 'too stupid'. When they hit public resistance, they wait as long as possible then back off with a slightly less stupid product release. Once that version has become entrenched they then try again with something even more stupid. Windows 8 was just an example of MS pushing a little too hard.

AaronFriel 13y ago
I am deeply bothered by this idea that you suggest and supposedly hold yourself. It essentially "presumes malice" instead of assuming ignorance. To believe that their desire is to produce user-hobbling products is to assume that somehow there is a conspiracy of executives at a company whose explicit policy is to do harm. That somehow no one has revealed this fact, their board has been somehow complicit in this direction as revealed to them by executives, and that they sit in these, perhaps smoke-filled, board-rooms discussing how they can dumb down their products or harm the general public. That's insane, you're insane, and your philosophy is far and above more cynical than anyone's need be.

AaronFriel 13y ago

I am deeply bothered by this idea that you suggest and supposedly hold yourself. It essentially "presumes malice" instead of assuming ignorance. To believe that their desire is to produce user-hobbling products is to assume that somehow there is a conspiracy of executives at a company whose explicit policy is to do harm. That somehow no one has revealed this fact, their board has been somehow complicit in this direction as revealed to them by executives, and that they sit in these, perhaps smoke-filled, board-rooms discussing how they can dumb down their products or harm the general public. That's insane, you're insane, and your philosophy is far and above more cynical than anyone's need be.