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"
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
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"
A ruthless businessman does not a bad man make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
A ruthless businessman does not a bad man make.
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.
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"?
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
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
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.
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.