And yet my parents taught me that the end does not justify the means.
Hmmm.... I wonder if that is perhaps too simplistic an interpretation of what your parents taught you.
Let me ask you two questions:
1) If you were a recipient of, say, Gates Foundation funds for malaria reduction, you are saying you would refuse it because it was tainted, having resulted from monopoly profits?
2) Which is better: These ill-gotten gains (obtained through less-than desirable 'means') are diverted to socially desirable 'ends' -- I don't want to get into an argument over what is 'socially desirable,' so let's assume, for the sake of argument that we agree on it -- or not at all?
If I understand you correctly, your answer to (1) is "yes," and to (2) "not at all"?
Mac OS X is balanced by design. A stripped down OS is unbalanced and creates a void that will invariably be filled by third parties with solutions of varying quality, and integration and usability.
By having one OS, Apple leads by strengthening its OS at a time when many ask the question, "What defines an OS? What is an operating system?" Apple respects the whole, and thus defines it.
Each OS is designed in relation to the other OSes. They do not exist in a vacuum.
With one OS, Apple has more creative freedom. New users and developers are encouraged to upgrade. The value of the upgrade is greater. It is the new development platform. Many will upgrade. There will be innovation and growth.
If an older OS has more share then the new, that could hinder growth of the new platform, i would think.
Hmmm.... I wonder if that is perhaps too simplistic an interpretation of what your parents taught you.
Let me ask you two questions:
1) If you were a recipient of, say, Gates Foundation funds for malaria reduction, you are saying you would refuse it because it was tainted, having resulted from monopoly profits?
2) Which is better: These ill-gotten gains (obtained through less-than desirable 'means') are diverted to socially desirable 'ends' -- I don't want to get into an argument over what is 'socially desirable,' so let's assume, for the sake of argument that we agree on it -- or not at all?
If I understand you correctly, your answer to (1) is "yes," and to (2) "not at all"?
Personally I thinks its your interpretation that is too simplistic. Of course the answer to (1) is 'no' the funds should be accepted, BUT, that act has NO reflection on BG as a person or his actions. His previous actions are not justified just because of this.
Re (2) again, given the fact that the 'gains' exist they can/should be used as best they can but again that doesn't make the holder someone to put forth as a shining example.
It could very well be argued that these 'socially desirable ends' would have been better served if BG had not abused his position in the first place, thereby making computation resources more affordable to everyone years ago thereby improving education and reducing malaria even further than through the current path.
Jobs admitted that .Mac had fallen behind. "We have not achieved our full potential," he said, adding that the company planned to soon release a new set of initiatives for .Mac
I bloddy hope so, it's fallen behind like a slow cow. The existing service should be free. They should rename is '.Slack'
"I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check," he said. "If that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
BAM! Total Microsoft body-SLAM! Gates looks woozy, and Ballmer ineffectually throws a chair into the ring from the corner! 9.0,9.5, and a 10.0 from the judge from Romania!!!
Personally I thinks its your interpretation that is too simplistic. Of course the answer to (1) is 'no' the funds should be accepted, BUT, that act has NO reflection on BG as a person or his actions. His previous actions are not justified just because of this.
Re (2) again, given the fact that the 'gains' exist they can/should be used as best they can but again that doesn't make the holder someone to put forth as a shining example.
It could very well be argued that these 'socially desirable ends' would have been better served if BG had not abused his position in the first place, thereby making computation resources more affordable to everyone years ago thereby improving education and reducing malaria even further than through the current path.
Hence the 'ends don't justify the means'.
Let me just suggest that you actually read what I originally wrote, before making attributions to things that I never said (or implied), such as "[BG's] actions are justified," or "[BG] is a shining example" etc.
My main point is, I do think that SJ is a bit chintzy with his wealth. Of course, that is based on what is publicly known, so I admit I could be misjudging him based on what he does in private and in quiet.
Jeez, BG is a hard-nosed geek that made good. Nothing overly sinister about him and what he does with his money is altruistic.
"Monopolistic practices" brought computing down from the ivory and corporate towers to the masses. What? Do folks really think that if IBM retained dominance that the world would be a better place? Or even Apple?
Folks whine for Netscape, Sun and even Apple. They had their chance and blew it. Had they not they would be Google...and don't believe that Google is THAT much a better corporate citizen than MS. In fact their lawyers are very bit as effective as that of Microsoft and they are equally unafraid to use their dominating status.
Jeez, BG is a hard-nosed geek that made good. Nothing overly sinister about him and what he does with his money is altruistic.
"Monopolistic practices" brought computing down from the ivory and corporate towers to the masses. What? Do folks really think that if IBM retained dominance that the world would be a better place? Or even Apple?
Folks whine for Netscape, Sun and even Apple. They had their chance and blew it. Had they not they would be Google...and don't believe that Google is THAT much a better corporate citizen than MS. In fact their lawyers are very bit as effective as that of Microsoft and they are equally unafraid to use their dominating status.
Comments
And yet my parents taught me that the end does not justify the means.
Hmmm.... I wonder if that is perhaps too simplistic an interpretation of what your parents taught you.
Let me ask you two questions:
1) If you were a recipient of, say, Gates Foundation funds for malaria reduction, you are saying you would refuse it because it was tainted, having resulted from monopoly profits?
2) Which is better: These ill-gotten gains (obtained through less-than desirable 'means') are diverted to socially desirable 'ends' -- I don't want to get into an argument over what is 'socially desirable,' so let's assume, for the sake of argument that we agree on it -- or not at all?
If I understand you correctly, your answer to (1) is "yes," and to (2) "not at all"?
By having one OS, Apple leads by strengthening its OS at a time when many ask the question, "What defines an OS? What is an operating system?" Apple respects the whole, and thus defines it.
With one OS, Apple has more creative freedom. New users and developers are encouraged to upgrade. The value of the upgrade is greater. It is the new development platform. Many will upgrade. There will be innovation and growth.
If an older OS has more share then the new, that could hinder growth of the new platform, i would think.
Hmmm.... I wonder if that is perhaps too simplistic an interpretation of what your parents taught you.
Let me ask you two questions:
1) If you were a recipient of, say, Gates Foundation funds for malaria reduction, you are saying you would refuse it because it was tainted, having resulted from monopoly profits?
2) Which is better: These ill-gotten gains (obtained through less-than desirable 'means') are diverted to socially desirable 'ends' -- I don't want to get into an argument over what is 'socially desirable,' so let's assume, for the sake of argument that we agree on it -- or not at all?
If I understand you correctly, your answer to (1) is "yes," and to (2) "not at all"?
Personally I thinks its your interpretation that is too simplistic. Of course the answer to (1) is 'no' the funds should be accepted, BUT, that act has NO reflection on BG as a person or his actions. His previous actions are not justified just because of this.
Re (2) again, given the fact that the 'gains' exist they can/should be used as best they can but again that doesn't make the holder someone to put forth as a shining example.
It could very well be argued that these 'socially desirable ends' would have been better served if BG had not abused his position in the first place, thereby making computation resources more affordable to everyone years ago thereby improving education and reducing malaria even further than through the current path.
Hence the 'ends don't justify the means'.
Jobs admitted that .Mac had fallen behind. "We have not achieved our full potential," he said, adding that the company planned to soon release a new set of initiatives for .Mac
I bloddy hope so, it's fallen behind like a slow cow. The existing service should be free. They should rename is '.Slack'
"I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check," he said. "If that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products."
BAM! Total Microsoft body-SLAM! Gates looks woozy, and Ballmer ineffectually throws a chair into the ring from the corner! 9.0,9.5, and a 10.0 from the judge from Romania!!!
Personally I thinks its your interpretation that is too simplistic. Of course the answer to (1) is 'no' the funds should be accepted, BUT, that act has NO reflection on BG as a person or his actions. His previous actions are not justified just because of this.
Re (2) again, given the fact that the 'gains' exist they can/should be used as best they can but again that doesn't make the holder someone to put forth as a shining example.
It could very well be argued that these 'socially desirable ends' would have been better served if BG had not abused his position in the first place, thereby making computation resources more affordable to everyone years ago thereby improving education and reducing malaria even further than through the current path.
Hence the 'ends don't justify the means'.
Let me just suggest that you actually read what I originally wrote, before making attributions to things that I never said (or implied), such as "[BG's] actions are justified," or "[BG] is a shining example" etc.
My main point is, I do think that SJ is a bit chintzy with his wealth. Of course, that is based on what is publicly known, so I admit I could be misjudging him based on what he does in private and in quiet.
"Monopolistic practices" brought computing down from the ivory and corporate towers to the masses. What? Do folks really think that if IBM retained dominance that the world would be a better place? Or even Apple?
Folks whine for Netscape, Sun and even Apple. They had their chance and blew it. Had they not they would be Google...and don't believe that Google is THAT much a better corporate citizen than MS. In fact their lawyers are very bit as effective as that of Microsoft and they are equally unafraid to use their dominating status.
Vinea
Jeez, BG is a hard-nosed geek that made good. Nothing overly sinister about him and what he does with his money is altruistic.
"Monopolistic practices" brought computing down from the ivory and corporate towers to the masses. What? Do folks really think that if IBM retained dominance that the world would be a better place? Or even Apple?
Folks whine for Netscape, Sun and even Apple. They had their chance and blew it. Had they not they would be Google...and don't believe that Google is THAT much a better corporate citizen than MS. In fact their lawyers are very bit as effective as that of Microsoft and they are equally unafraid to use their dominating status.
Vinea
I agree 100% with your sentiments, sir!