Is Microsoft evil?

Tools    





What do y'all (Texas vernacular , coastal lexicon) think? Was Microsoft simply trying to supply the best product they possibly could and it just snowballed into this megalith? Do you think Microsoft is being unfair to competitors? If one were to put themselves in Microsoft's shoes would it not be painful to back off? Are they violating the free market?



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
I would say that Microsoft is simply doing what any business would, they develop a popular product and run with it.

People buy Microsoft products simply because, well, they are user-friendly. Take Internet Explorer for example, most people choose it over Netscape simply because Netscape is a pain in the a*s, and anyone that makes a website can make it easier targeting an audience that uses IE.

As for Windows, great program, and you can't tell me that there's a company out there with a program as easy to use as Windows. I would put money on the fact that these companies making a fuss about Microsoft do indeed have at least one Microsoft program on their computer. They're not evil, they're just really good at what they do.
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



I'm with Spudly. Can you really fault a company for being too successful? I think people are grasping at straws here. If bundling IE, for example, was enough to skyrocket it to popularity, why isn't MS Money whooping Quicken? Why don't people complain about Notepad over Textpad? Simple: they're looking for something to complain about. IE is a superior browser...with the release of 6.0, that's as close to a fact as you'll get without it actually becoming one. It's even more standards compatible, and it displays more web pages as they were intended to be displayed.

Here's the real question: is it or is it not possible for another OS to come in and compete? If the answer is yes, then MS is not at fault...they're not engaging in faulty practices. Even if the answer is "yes, technically, but MS is so popular that it'd be very difficult," then I still think MS cannot be blamed. They're putting out a product people flat-out love. There's nothing to stop people, though, from switching over to Linux, that's MS' fault. The only reason people don't switch their OS is because no other OS is particularly easy to switch to...and that's not MS' fault.



I don't think Microsoft is evil, but I think it is a little less than accurate to say that people buy their stuff because their stuff is good and user-friendly. I think the business decisions they made early on were much more important than the quality of their products. And let's remember that they stole windows from Apple, even if they have made some very good innovations since then. They were able to get a monopoly on the fastest growing type of products in the world and they were able to hang on to that monopoly; that is their main claim to success.
__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.



The word "monopoly" is not at all appropriate. If they had a true monopoly, there would not be tens of thousands of people using Red Hat Linux, Mandrake, or MacOS. You can sit down right now and write your own OS and sell it, and people can use it instead of Windows. Therefore, they don't have a monopoly.

I think you're right in saying that their stealth (and yes, sneakiness) early on gave them the kick they needed...but if the product was crap, we'd have seen a burn out (or at least a very obvious upcoming burn out) long before now. They are where they are now because, once they got there, they did their job well.



When you buy a computer, unless it is a Mac, there is about a 99% chance that it is going to have Windows on it. That is what people mean when they call Windows a monopoly. If it SUCKED, then they wouldn't have had much of a chance to get the monopoly, but it was far from the best OS when it first came out; Apple's was better, and so was Atari ST's TOS. I agree that they did their job well; all I am saying is that Windows is not the best just because it is the most used, not by a long shot. You do have a good point with many of their other products, though.



Well, I admit that it was clever business practices that got them on there to a degree...but it was still very user-friendly. And open! Mac was closed...reserved. The IBM-compatible stuff was a real kick...so Mac helped seal its own fate there for awhile.

So, is it tough as hell to beat MS? Absolutely...but I don't think they're a monopoly, and I sure don't think chopping them up is the answer. You don't increase innovation by beating up one of the leading innovators around...you just give others more incentive or encouragement to take that giant on. That's my opinion, at least.



I don't disagree. I'm really not sure what I would do with Microsoft if it were up to me.



I'm not old, you're just 12.
I really wouldn't sat Microsoft is evil. Satan is evil. Hitler is evil. Are you saying that a computer company compares evil wise with Satan and Hitler? They're certainly unscrupulous, but untill they almost wipe out an entire race of people or steal souls, I would't call them evil. That word is thrown around way too much these days, and it's losing it's meaning. George Bush calls everything that he doesn't like evil. Evil isn't the little things, it's the BIG things like war, plague pestilence, famine, murder, raining toads...okay, not raining toads, but I had to knock myself off my soapbox somehow.
__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/



Originally posted by Monkeypunch
I really wouldn't sat Microsoft is evil. Satan is evil. Hitler is evil. Are you saying that a computer company compares evil wise with Satan and Hitler? They're certainly unscrupulous, but untill they almost wipe out an entire race of people or steal souls, I would't call them evil. That word is thrown around way too much these days, and it's losing it's meaning. George Bush calls everything that he doesn't like evil. Evil isn't the little things, it's the BIG things like war, plague pestilence, famine, murder, raining toads...okay, not raining toads, but I had to knock myself off my soapbox somehow.
Come on now... are you trying to tell me you didn't get the gist of what I was saying? Do I have to be so literal?

Since you brought it up, are there occasions where war is not evil? I think so. Plague? Is illness evil? Can I say "I have an evil cold" and my lexicon would sit right with you? Why is famine evil? Is there some evil power that causes starvation? In MY opinion there are far too many people who nitpick word use and ignore the point of a thread.



Microsoft is not evil. Anything that could make something as great as halo is not evil. And by the way few people realize that being a monopoly is actually not illegal. It is abusing the power of a monopoly that is illegal. The only company I will admit is abusing its power (and yes evil) is debeers (I think that's how you spell it.) they bribed government officials so they would pass a law making any diamond found anywhere in south Africa belongs to them. there are tons of diamonds in Australia and they are virtually the same. debeers threatened to flood the market with the same kind of diamonds just so they wouldn't have competition. while people were starving in Russia the government had giant warehouses filled with diamonds but didn't use them because debeers bribed people to keep them locked up. the conditions in their mines are the worst in the world. now that's a bad company.
__________________
sometimes it just doesnt seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps



i would like it to be known i havent read what others have said and if i repeat it is pure coincidence and i guess great minds think a like
microsoft is such a great company, i mean they bring out word 95, than 98 and than amazingly 2000, each with amaznigly an upgrade or one more special feature than the other and each uncompatible. Every one has to update their program every six months just so it will be compatable, think about it, sure microsoft would go out of business if they just made a perfect program striaght off, but how much money does one company need? i can hear them all laughing at us in the stores while we spend $100 on all this 'currently new' software, when they know in three months they will release a better version.

here is my message Mr Gates, since you already have enough money just spend one year making the perfect product that cannot be made any better and than release it without needing updates or patches. SAVE ME MY MONEY.

Im know that they will go out of business but they could expand witht the money they have now, they could have a small computer business making perfect programs and in times of need they can have another job working in a toilet paper factory



i would like it known that now i have read what others have said and now respond to it
are you all afraid to defy the empire, i will stand alone! i admit some of the products are great and are brillently successful but if you can honestly tell me that your not sick of updating and paying money for the same program with a different version name, than i will eat my hat.



"I award you no points, and may God have Mercy on your soul..."

They also came out with XP, believe it or not.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com