or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Gates disappointed at Microsoft's performance in mobile computing, calls for change
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gates disappointed at Microsoft's performance in mobile computing, calls for change - Page 2

post #41 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


And... monopoly was reached by nobody wanted them products?

Wouldn't that be neat 1smile.gif

Not hard to do when a company do all it can to make sure there isn't another viable choice. IE browser was once a monopoly. That is until other browsers were allow to compete within the OS.

 

Back in the 80's and 90's, you could not buy a name brand PC without an MS OS (or IE) pre-installed. Whether you want it or not. (Not to mention the problems of finding drivers for the hardware. Which many depends on having an MS OS.) And these name brands could not sell a PC with anything other than an MS OS (or IE) pre-installed. Otherwise MS would cut off their MS OS license agreement. Don't mistaken wanting to use a product, to having no other choice but to use it.  

post #42 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Gates knew exactly what was coming, he knew years ago that smartphones and tablets would be the future of computing. MS squandered a golden opportunity and a big early lead by putting a crappy Windows CE on crappy hardware, and trying to put a desktop OS on tablets.

That's more the answer I think. Into perpetuity, Bill Gates will likely be remembered more for his philanthropic work, although being the founder of... you know, that company that made software, ah, Micro something will be difficult shake off.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #43 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

ohh - I'd forgotten about that. Nice catch.

I just still can't believe how ignorant, arrogant and stupid they are.

No disrespect meant for 1000s they've employed over the years, some very savvy smart people stifled by dumbass management. Pathetic.

 

Which way to the OS graveyard ?

Any way will get you there if you don't know where you're going.

 

I totally agree. no disrespect to MS employees, regardless of the PR stunt which most probably didn't support. 

 

The MS management is dire need of new blood. Like most large companies, any visionary wil be fired for speaking their mind rather than going with the status quo. 

 

Regardless of fanboy allegiances, MS brought affordable computing to the masses. The problem is that haven't revolutionized mass computing since Windows 95. 18 years with no real new vision. People complain the iOS is stale after 5 years but Windows is stale after 18 years. 

 

MS has 95% of worldwide OS share and hasn't bothered to massively change the way we interact with computers in 18 years. Where is the innovation? Windows 8? How long did that take after the IPad?  

 

MS, your money, power, and market share, improve the way we interact with technology 

post #44 of 77

Wrote a letter to Tim Cook, who passed it to a senior VP and who then responded. Wrote a letter to Steve Balmer and received one back saying 'we don't talk to strangers'. Says a lot to me lol.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #45 of 77
I'd like to see more Gates at MS. He's no Jobs, but he is a Gates, and that's better than a Balmer. Maybe he's learned some things from Apple and Google, you know he has to pay attention. Maybe I just want Jobs back and I'm putting it on Gates since I used to love Win XP and 98 when they were new.
post #46 of 77
One thing I realised from philosophical discussions on the weekend and from seeing Lincoln today is that men AREN'T born equal. Equality is a gift you have to give them and sometimes that gift is very costly. It is good to see that Bill is busy giving that to the rest of the world.

As for MS - it is still a company with the business model of copying others and putting competition out of business. It inherited that model from IBM. Even in that, Steve Jobs and Apple had done the damage to IBM, it was just MS that was in the right place at the right time to pick up the pieces. It is a model bound to fail.
post #47 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Who knows... we'd probably still see Windows Mobile today if it wasn't for the iPhone and Android.

 

You mean if it wasn't for iPhone period. Android had NOTHING to do with the monumental paradigm shift that happened after January 2007 in mobile phone industry.

 

Android is nothing but a cheep-skate clone of iPhone and its depressing that people now compare it with iPhone like it was some kind of pear that deserves equal credit for the progress made today in the industry.


Edited by BARCODE - 2/19/13 at 11:42am
post #48 of 77

Just want to state my view on two points:

 

1) As long as Bill Gates is alive and on the board, Ballmer will stay CEO. The Microsoft board of directors is made up of two types of people: Microsoft stalwarts and former execs who are simply padding their already generous retirement checks. Nobody there is going to make any waves. Never.

 

2) Microsoft started out as a software company. As Windows became the world's dominant OS and no viable competitor was in sight, Gates became fixed on the idea of putting "Windows everywhere" -- on computers, on embedded devices, on tablets, cellphones, etc. On everything regardless if it fitted or not. (XBOX was a deviation, but MS has learned nothing from it) It is this philosophy that drives everything that Ballmer does. Everything he has done, is doing, and will do, makes sense from this point of view. Gates set the goal and Ballmer is determined to attain it with the same blind faith and fanaticism of a kamikaze pilot.

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #49 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

Anyone remember that MS mock funeral for the iPhone in 2010 when MS had Windows 7 phone release to Master party?

How's that working for them now?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/10/microsoft-celebrates-windows-phone-7-rtm-with-funeral-parade-for/

Yes, it's etched in my memory.
I go and revisit the event for a comedy relief.
post #50 of 77
A make-believe quote we attribute to Balmer.
Balmer's wife, "honey can you open the window to let in some fresh air". Balmer's reply "don't you mean Windows window darling".
post #51 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

The MS management is dire need of new blood.

While looking at their BoD, I stumbled upon this - LOL

They have a CPO - Chief People Officer. Never heard that one before; it it the successor to a HR manager?

Possibly the most important person there: if they can change the mindset at MS instead of all this hierarchy they would come up with a real innovative product. Not that they don't innovate, but they also don't make a dent in the universe either.
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #52 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Gates is wrong that MS had the opportunity. They still don't have the opportunity. They clearly have neither the culture nor the talent to implement competitive systems. A company, like an individual, must first be prepared to take advantage of opportunities that might present itself. MS was and is not so prepared.

It's as silly to say MS had the opportunity to get into this market, as to say that a high school dropout missed his opportunity to apply for the neurosurgery fellowship at Johns Hopkins.

To say they didn't have the culture is one thing, but I believe they had the talent, look at the XBox, and their OS was one of the first in smartphones and tried putting Win XP on tablets. They had the right ideas just wrong implementation.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #53 of 77

OMG, - Ballmer got something on Gates, and visa versa.  Just wondering how long they can continue this farce.

27" iMac, i7 2.8G CPU, 16 GB, 2TB Hd, Radeon HD 4850,  MacBookPro 13",  iPad2 64Gb, 2 x  iPhone4S 32Gb, 1 x 64Gb iPhone5S, 1Tb TimeCap,  2 x Apple TV.   Got my AAPL when they were $12.50 each.
Reply
27" iMac, i7 2.8G CPU, 16 GB, 2TB Hd, Radeon HD 4850,  MacBookPro 13",  iPad2 64Gb, 2 x  iPhone4S 32Gb, 1 x 64Gb iPhone5S, 1Tb TimeCap,  2 x Apple TV.   Got my AAPL when they were $12.50 each.
Reply
post #54 of 77
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates says the software giant hasn't been innovative enough with regard to the new era of mobile computing, saying the company's initial approach was "clearly a mistake."

 

And it's all your fault, Bill.  You're the one who kept promoting "Windows Everywhere."  You're the one who insisted, for a decade, that vanilla Windows, jammed nearly unchanged into a pad computer, was a good idea.  The world disagreed.  You didn't listen.

 

 

Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"And there were a lot of amazing things that Steve's leadership got done with the company in the last year," Gates said listing the CEO's recent achievements. "Windows 8 is key to the future; the Surface computer; Bing, people are seeing as a better search product; Xbox."

 

 

Windows will always be Microsoft's key to the future.  Legacy desktop / laptop Windows plus Office, to be more precise.  Because Windows and Office are the two things that Microsoft cares about most.  Because they're the two-headed cash cow that Microsoft can never sacrifice, or even threaten in any way.  And Surface threatens Windows and Office revenue because Apple has trained the world to expect to pay less for pad computing software.  Especially the OS.

 

If the second-greatest miracle in tech (guess the first) happens, and Surface RT + Pro begin to sell in more than roundoff-error volumes, then Microsoft's average selling price for all flavors of Windows will drop.  More realistically, Surface RT + Pro sales will remain "moderate," the division will never make money, and iPad will continue to dominate throughout the entire post-PC era, however long that era will be.  The net result: Microsoft loses either way.  They lose if Surface succeeds.  They lose if Surface fails.  They've painted themselves into a corner in mobile.

 

 

 


Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Is it enough?" the Microsoft chairman continued, "No, he and I are not satisfied that in terms of, you know, breakthrough things, that we're doing everything possible."
 

What he said: "...we're doing everything possible."

 

What he meant: "...we're doing everything possible to make everyone think we're actually trying in mobile."

 

 


Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We didn't miss cell phones," Gates conceded, "but the way that we went about it didn't allow us to get the leadership. So it's clearly a mistake."
 

Good for you, Bill.  You're saying what Ballmer is afraid to say.

 

Gates: "So it's clearly a mistake."

Ballmer: "Sales are moderate."

 

 

 


Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Gates went on to discuss the assorted philanthropic efforts he and his wife have engaged in over the past several years.
 

You're doing great work, helping the world, improving people's lives.

Thank you for that, Bill.  History will remember you as a hero.

If only the other billionaires of the world (ahem, Larry Ellison) were so humanitarian.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #55 of 77

As has been mentioned, talk of MS being slow to respond or a bit late to innovate or failing to capitalize on an early lead are wildly off the mark.  The fact is, the iPhone might have well as been a completely different product category from Windows phones of the day (or Palm, for that matter, despite claims from fans of same).

 

It wasn't a matter of just adopting touch screens, or making things somewhat easier to use, or reducing the number of buttons.  It was a matter of rethinking the entire "smartphone" experience from the ground up-- what it was for, what it could potentially do, how where and when it might be used, and most of all how people might best interact with a small, ubiquitously connected device.

 

It's sort of Apple's curse:  once they've utterly transformed a market, their innovations are so quickly adopted industry wide, and are so quickly acknowledged as right and reasonable, that it becomes difficult to imagine a world where said innovations were in fact non-existent, unimagined, and possibly suspect.

 

The iPhone didn't "get there first" with some tech that was being slowly rolled out by others.  It came out of nowhere and completely changed the landscape.  It did that, not by applying some new stuff to the existing idea (which is all MS was every going to be able to do), but by fundamentally re-imagining what might be possible.  Smartphones went, overnight, from being fussy business tools to the enablers of a changed social landscape, for good or ill. 

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #56 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

And it's all your fault, Bill.  You're the one who kept promoting "Windows Everywhere."  You're the one who insisted, for a decade, that vanilla Windows, jammed nearly unchanged into a pad computer, was a good idea.  The world disagreed.  You didn't listen.




Windows will always be Microsoft's key to the future.  Legacy desktop / laptop Windows plus Office, to be more precise.  Because Windows and Office are the two things that Microsoft cares about most.  Because they're the two-headed cash cow that Microsoft can never sacrifice, or even threaten in any way.  And Surface threatens Windows and Office revenue because Apple has trained the world to expect to pay less for pad computing software.  Especially the OS.

If the second-greatest miracle in tech (guess the first) happens, and Surface RT + Pro begin to sell in more than roundoff-error volumes, then Microsoft's average selling price for all flavors of Windows will drop.  More realistically, Surface RT + Pro sales will remain "moderate," the division will never make money, and iPad will continue to dominate throughout the entire post-PC era, however long that era will be.  The net result: Microsoft loses either way.  They lose if Surface succeeds.  They lose if Surface fails.  They've painted themselves into a corner in mobile.




What he said: "...we're doing everything possible."

What he meant: "...we're doing everything possible to make everyone think we're actually trying in mobile."



Good for you, Bill.  You're saying what Ballmer is afraid to say.

Gates: "So it's clearly a mistake."
Ballmer: "Sales are moderate."




You're doing great work, helping the world, improving people's lives.
Thank you for that, Bill.  History will remember you as a hero.
If only the other billionaires of the world (ahem, Larry Ellison) were so humanitarian.

Ellison likes his material things no doubt. But he may also give to charities for all we know. Remember Gates wasn't exactly a saint running MS. How many companies did he squash or put out of business using MS's clout? How many lives did he ruin? How many partners did he strong arm to get his way? This all gets swept under the rug of "It's just business". Gates didn't get his money from being nice. It's nice that he is helping others, but it isn't like he is giving his billions away.
post #57 of 77

I know it gets cited all the time, but it might be worth it to take another look at the famous "Ballmer laughs at the iPhone" video.

 

He dismisses the iPhone because it's too expensive and doesn't have a keyboard (so it's not "a good business machine").  He expresses satisfaction with, specifically, the Motorola Q, which is "$99 on contract, it's a very capable machine, it'll do music, it'll do internet, it'll do email, it'll do instant messaging, so I kinda look at that and I say, well, I like our strategy, I like it a lot."

 

He meant this, of course:

 

 

 

Which gives you a sense of how clueless Microsoft/Ballmer was, even after they had been shown the future.  Price, hardware keyboards, and "functionality", without any acknowledgement or even apparent awareness that those very features had remained business ghetto niches because they could only be accessed via fussy little directional pads, PC like menu structures, and opaque, inconsistent hardware buttons. I'm sure the iPhone struck him as a gimmicky luxury item, nice for what it was but no match for the "capable machines" that represented Microsoft's "strategy."

 

That's not being somewhat late to innovate or slow to incorporate new tech, that's a fundamental inability to understand why to innovate, which is to make devices that are more satisfying to use.  MS expects its customers to learn how to use their stuff so they can take advantage of all the great features MS has crammed in there.  Apple is interested in figuring out what people might like to do and how to make that easy as possible. 

 

Obviously, once the iPhone and its Android follow-on had made it clear that any phone that didn't follow the iPhone template would have no chance whatsoever in the market, MS was obliged to change it up and try to at least appear consumer friendly with their mobile offerings.  To their credit, they elected to do something different than just copy the iPhone, although it's not entirely clear that their choices make their devices any easier to use.  But I suspect that nothing really has changed, and that without an Apple to show them what needs to happen, they'll continue approach every problem as matter of "strategy" and "capable machines" and "features", instead of thinking about how people live, what they want, and how you might go about giving them that.


Edited by addabox - 2/19/13 at 12:21pm
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #58 of 77

M$ was early to the party.  That is typically the only way they can get their foot into the door.

 

Look at tablets, m$ had been trying to push them on to the general public, on and off, for 20 years.

 

m$ didn't have the lead with phones that they did with tablets, but they are masters of the missed opportunity.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

As a result... Microsoft was not only late to the party... they were also ill-equipped to deal with change.

It took them 3 years to come up with their next OS... when they should have begun scrapping Windows Mobile years before.
 
post #59 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratsg View Post

M$ was early to the party.  That is typically the only way they can get their foot into the door.

 

Look at tablets, m$ had been trying to push them on to the general public, on and off, for 20 years.

 

m$ didn't have the lead with phones that they did with tablets, but they are masters of the missed opportunity.

 

 

 

Again, I think it's a bit of a red herring to even imagine that MS was in these markets.  They made some devices that get called by the same names, but for all practical purposes the things they sold as, for instance, tablets and the iPad are completely different products, with completely different reasons for being.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #60 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

As a Linux user, and future Mac user, I hope Ballmer keeps running the company for a long time to come...

 

I think its awesome that monkey boy continues to entertain us as his ship slowly sinks.

post #61 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

Ellison likes his material things no doubt. But he may also give to charities for all we know. Remember Gates wasn't exactly a saint running MS. How many companies did he squash or put out of business using MS's clout? How many lives did he ruin? How many partners did he strong arm to get his way? This all gets swept under the rug of "It's just business". Gates didn't get his money from being nice. It's nice that he is helping others, but it isn't like he is giving his billions away.

Exactly so. The whole reason Bill Gates started this charity thing is because of his repulsive business tactics. In 1999 he didn't party, no he went out to kill Netscape. And felt remorse, vomiting during BoD meetings and all that. This stuff can be looked up. There is hardly anything 'nice' about Bill Gates.
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #62 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


While looking at their BoD, I stumbled upon this - LOL

They have a CPO - Chief People Officer. Never heard that one before; it it the successor to a HR manager?

Possibly the most important person there: if they can change the mindset at MS instead of all this hierarchy they would come up with a real innovative product. Not that they don't innovate, but they also don't make a dent in the universe either.

 

 

Completely off topic, but I worked for a division of Sprint during the dotcom boom.  Sprint enterprise network services to be specific.  And we had a "Director of Fun"

post #63 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Exactly so. The whole reason Bill Gates started this charity thing is because of his repulsive business tactics. In 1999 he didn't party, no he went out to kill Netscape. And felt remorse, vomiting during BoD meetings and all that. This stuff can be looked up. There is hardly anything 'nice' about Bill Gates.

A ruthless businessman does not a bad man make.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


A ruthless businessman does not a bad man make.

 

Why?  Is business somehow exempt from questions of morality?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #65 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Why?  Is business somehow exempt from questions of morality?

Sure it is. A person isn't the same person in all facets of his life. Are people that literally pummel their opponents bad men? Business is dog eat dog, and what did he do that was so wrong? Bundle a internet browser into the OS? Isn't that the norm now? Why is it okay now but bad back then? All I read on here is "kill android, kill amazon, kill the wireless carriers, kill the cable companies, etc" but all that is morally ok because it'll benefit Apple.
Edited by dasanman69 - 2/20/13 at 5:57am
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Sure it is. A person isn't the same person in all facets of his life. Are people that literally pummel their opponents bad men? Business is dog eat dog, and what did he do that was so wrong? Bundle a internet browser into the OS? Isn't that the norm now? Why is it okay now but bad back then? All I read on here is "kill android, kill amazon, kill the wireless carriers, kill the cable companies, etc" but all that is morally ok because it'll benefit Apple.

If a company saves millions by dumping toxic waste unsafely that causes the cancer rate in children to sky rocket do you say "well, that's the cost of doing business. It's not personal"? That's the same logic you see in movies where some guy is about to assassinate some innocents but first reassures his victims by saying "it's not personal, it's just business." Who is he really trying to convince with such a trite line? You justify it as business being dog-eat-dog but you don't truly mean that. The bottom line is that companies are run by people so anything unethical a company does is ultimately done by one one or more people within that company.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #67 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If a company saves millions by dumping toxic waste unsafely that causes the cancer rate in children to sky rocket do you say "well, that's the cost of doing business. It's not personal"? That's the same logic you see in movies where some guy is about to assassinate some innocents but first reassures his victims by saying "it's not personal, it's just business." Who is he really trying to convince with such a trite line? You justify it as business being dog-eat-dog but you don't truly mean that. The bottom line is that companies are run by people so anything unethical a company does is ultimately done by one one or more people within that company.

That's extreme. Of course hurting innocent people is unethical. Business is absolutely dog eat dog, how many airlines are gone because of Jet Blue? Where's blockbuster? Where's Kodak? Where's Tower Records? How many other businesses get eaten up? Do you think it of any consolation to those that lost their jobs or franchises why they lost it? Are they thinking "well it's ok, they didn't mean to put us out of business"?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

That's extreme. Of course hurting innocent people is unethical. Business is absolutely dog eat dog, how many airlines are gone because of Jet Blue? Where's blockbuster? Where's Kodak? Where's Tower Records? How many other businesses get eaten up? Do you think it of any consolation to those that lost their jobs or franchises why they lost it? Are they thinking "well it's ok, they didn't mean to put us out of business"?

1) Of course it's extreme. It's illustrating a point.

2) So Jet Blue acted unethically? So all those other companies are gone not because they weren't smart enough to survive as the tech and culture changed, but only because others acted unethically?

3) Why can't a business a survive and be ethical? Why can't a business that acts unethically still fail? The answer is that it happens all the time. What I don't get is why you think survival in business is about being unscrupulous.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #69 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Of course it's extreme. It's illustrating a point.

2) So Jet Blue acted unethically? So all those other companies are gone not because they weren't smart enough to survive as the tech and culture changed, but only because others acted unethically?

3) Why can't a business a survive and be ethical? Why can't a business that acts unethically still fail? The answer is that it happens all the time. What I don't get is why you think survival in business is about being unscrupulous.

No none of my examples happened because of unethical means but do you really think the now defunct businesses care about how it happened? If I'm going to be robbed I'd rather it be at gunpoint than to be pickpocketed and walk around unbeknownst only to later say "what happened?, where's my money?". The point I was trying to make is that because Gates was unethical in his business life it does not mean he's a unethical person through and through. The vast majority of businesses that thrive do so by not being unethical, but it still doesn't mean they're not out to eliminate the competition
Edited by dasanman69 - 2/20/13 at 8:40am
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #70 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

No none of my examples happened because of unethical means but do you really think the now defunct businesses care about how it happened? If I'm going to be robbed I'd rather it be at gunpoint than to be pickpocketed and walk around unbeknownst only to later say "what happened?, where's my money?"

1) Yes, I think a business owner might be concerned as to why their company is failing.

2) You're going way off the reservation (is that racist?) as both of your examples are clearly unethical.

3) Let's use Lance Armstrong as an example. He cheated in order to win the Tour de France, right? That means he likely took the victory, which means money and fame, away from other cyclists. Is that fair to you? I certainly don't think so, so yes, in that sense it matters how he one (and I say this as someone doesn't give a shit about that sport).

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #71 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Yes, I think a business owner might be concerned as to why their company is failing.

2) You're going way off the reservation (is that racist?) as both of your examples are clearly unethical.

3) Let's use Lance Armstrong as an example. He cheated in order to win the Tour de France, right? That means he likely took the victory, which means money and fame, away from other cyclists. Is that fair to you? I certainly don't think so, so yes, in that sense it matters how he one (and I say this as someone doesn't give a shit about that sport).

The problem I have with the Lance analogy is that it was done in secret and unknown to the competing cyclists. I'd rather compare it to chess, where I can fully see how you're out maneuvering me and I have at least a chance to beat you.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #72 of 77

Still don't understand why "business" is some special provenance of human activity that apparently gets a pass if you **** people over.  "Dog eat dog" is an expedient phrase to normalize this idea, it's not some fundamental principal or moral philosophy.

 

Capitalism as currently practiced by corporations has chosen, for obviously self serving reasons, this idea of winning at all costs as being somehow right and good, in some deliberately vague social Darwinian sense, but we know better, or should. 

 

As far as Gates goes specifically, if he was pig in business he's a pig.  You don't get a special pass just because you invoke the holy Marketplace.  It's a sphere of human activity like any other.  You wouldn't argue that a man that beats his wife is otherwise a pretty good dude so you shouldn't judge him too harshly; wife beating is a grave failing in and of itself and not somehow exonerated by, say, volunteering at the orphanage.

 

"Ruthlessness" is, in every walk of life outside of "business" generally understood to be fairly loathsome, in that it suggests a person that will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.  We further understand that "stopping at nothing" generally involves making the lives of others materially worse, which is the very definition of "immoral."

 

But as I say, because of our very convoluted relationship to "the marketplace" we somehow decide that ruthlessness in that instance is acceptable, even admirable, as if it were a gladiatorial arena and slaying your foes the only possible metric of success.  I don't think you can even make a case for this kind of unbridled competition having better outcomes for society at large, since the mechanisms for "competing" generally involve a great deal more, and a great deal more destructive strategies than just having a better product or service. 

 

So in the case of Gates, why should I admire his manipulations if it resulted in a manifestly worse computing environment, as in the case of the long, terrible reign of IE? 

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #73 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Still don't understand why "business" is some special provenance of human activity that apparently gets a pass if you **** people over.  "Dog eat dog" is an expedient phrase to normalize this idea, it's not some fundamental principal or moral philosophy.

Capitalism as currently practiced by corporations has chosen, for obviously self serving reasons, this idea of winning at all costs as being somehow right and good, in some deliberately vague social Darwinian sense, but we know better, or should. 

As far as Gates goes specifically, if he was pig in business he's a pig.  You don't get a special pass just because you invoke the holy Marketplace.  It's a sphere of human activity like any other.  You wouldn't argue that a man that beats his wife is otherwise a pretty good dude so you shouldn't judge him too harshly; wife beating is a grave failing in and of itself and not somehow exonerated by, say, volunteering at the orphanage.

"Ruthlessness" is, in every walk of life outside of "business" generally understood to be fairly loathsome, in that it suggests a person that will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.  We further understand that "stopping at nothing" generally involves making the lives of others materially worse, which is the very definition of "immoral."

But as I say, because of our very convoluted relationship to "the marketplace" we somehow decide that ruthlessness in that instance is acceptable, even admirable, as if it were a gladiatorial arena and slaying your foes the only possible metric of success.  I don't think you can even make a case for this kind of unbridled competition having better outcomes for society at large, since the mechanisms for "competing" generally involve a great deal more, and a great deal more destructive strategies than just having a better product or service. 

So in the case of Gates, why should I admire his manipulations if it resulted in a manifestly worse computing environment, as in the case of the long, terrible reign of IE? 

Because people like diamonds have facets. You're not the same person to everyone, you a husband to your wife, a father to your kids, a son to your parents, etc. I'm not giving him a pass, I'm just not going paint him completely a despicable human being because of his business ethics, nor am I commending him for them.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #74 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Because people like diamonds have facets. You're not the same person to everyone, you a husband to your wife, a father to your kids, a son to your parents, etc. I'm not giving him a pass, I'm just not going paint him completely a despicable human being because of his business ethics, nor am I commending him for them.

 

Fair enough, I would just say that certain behaviors are sufficiently odious as to swamp out redeeming qualities.  A murderer is generally known as a murder, parenting skills notwithstanding.

 

I'm not saying Gates is anything as reprehensible as a murderer, of course, just that when we're judging people's facets we're obliged to give weight to particularly notable characteristics, for good or ill.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #75 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Fair enough, I would just say that certain behaviors are sufficiently odious as to swamp out redeeming qualities.  A murderer is generally known as a murder, parenting skills notwithstanding.

I'm not saying Gates is anything as reprehensible as a murderer, of course, just that when we're judging people's facets we're obliged to give weight to particularly notable characteristics, for good or ill.

That happened 15 years ago. Are you the same person now that you were back then? I most certainly aren't, and I've done things in my earlier years that I would not do now, and I wouldn't want to forever be judged of the person I was then.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #76 of 77

Again, it sort of depends on the magnitude of the behavior.  If I was somewhat callow and lacked empathy 15 years ago and life has taught me compassion, then sure, I would hate to be held to that.  OTOH, if 15 years ago I was into violent street crime, then I would have to expect there would be a lingering stain.  I wouldn't want to forever be treated as a criminal if I had amended my ways, but I would need to understand if people were slow to trust me.
 

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #77 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Again, it sort of depends on the magnitude of the behavior.  If I was somewhat callow and lacked empathy 15 years ago and life has taught me compassion, then sure, I would hate to be held to that.  OTOH, if 15 years ago I was into violent street crime, then I would have to expect there would be a lingering stain.  I wouldn't want to forever be treated as a criminal if I had amended my ways, but I would need to understand if people were slow to trust me.

I couldn't agree more.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Gates disappointed at Microsoft's performance in mobile computing, calls for change