Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Is it time to put Microsoft's past into the past? Should we only be judging Microsoft's ethics by its current business practices?
Of course not. However, more recent actions should carry more weight than old ones. As a company or individual improves their act, they should be allowed to earn the goodwill of the public back
IF MS "earns" the goodwill of the public back, they will get it back - but they have to earn it first.
Blogs have no infuence.
Through personal experience, I feel they are still too big and mighty to care about their customers; As such, they have not earned my goodwill.
Blogs have no infuence.
Through personal experience, I feel they are still too big and mighty to care about their customers; As such, they have not earned my goodwill.
And how far back shall we go?
Oh, and do we apply the same mindset to workers as we do to corporations, since it is claimed that "corporations are people"?
Oh, and do we apply the same mindset to workers as we do to corporations, since it is claimed that "corporations are people"?
But MS is still gouging, lying, and stealing. When MS actually publishes its real systems API instead of the limited one they reveal in their SDK, then we will start to believe they are not lying and cheating. It would also help if they finally got rid of COM and its inherent security breaches. When Windows is free, as all operating systems should be, then we can start talking about ethics.
While I am glad that you are happy to work for free (wanna come work for me?) I don't think that the fact that Windows is not free has anything to do with ethics. What is free is choice...if you would like to use a free OS, then you have the free choice to do so.
Their culture is the same: Siphon every nickel you can from every customer you can, charge for fixes to products that have slid past some arbitrary "end of life" date, regardless of how many people are still using it. Sure, they've made small, lip-service changes to their policies (such as "shared-source" in response to open-source, and SQL Express in response to the popularity of MySQL,) but the overall game plan (that being "Gouge gouge gouge!") remains unchanged.
So why would we judge them any differently?
So why would we judge them any differently?
Bullpucky. I have never paid for an update to Windows. Or Office. Or Security Essentials. Never once has a service pack cost me a dime. Nor is the price of a new PC commiserate with your statement. On the other hand I see Apple do this all the time.
The wording was
charge for fixes to products that have slid past some arbitrary "end of life" date, regardless of how many people are still using it
All you have said here is that you have never used a Product that M$ has said has reached the End of Life that was never properly patched or if you have you haven't asked for a fix.
When M$ stop supporting any product and you need a fix you pay M$ for the privilege.
I still have several companies using NT4 Servers because the Hardware has no newer drivers.
Yep it's not Computer Hardware but Construction Site Hardware which is used to level the Earthworks to within 2 cm of Design. It saves Hundreds of Thousand of $ on a smallish Site and Millions on larger Sites by reducing to almost nil wasted fuel and backfilling where too much was removed.
The Hardware Suppliers sell the Laser Sighting Equipment that goes onto the Earthmover's and is fixed around the site and gives away the software that drives it. Instead of paying Microsoft for Fixes to secure the NT4 servers down I have just removed them from any possible connection to the Net. It's far cheaper than paying M$ to fix the problems that they created.
I still have some customers using 98 I at least got them off 95 and moved them to 98SE and XP& 2003 are still a monster in Business with little possibility of being removed in the short term.
Col
charge for fixes to products that have slid past some arbitrary "end of life" date, regardless of how many people are still using it
All you have said here is that you have never used a Product that M$ has said has reached the End of Life that was never properly patched or if you have you haven't asked for a fix.
When M$ stop supporting any product and you need a fix you pay M$ for the privilege.
I still have several companies using NT4 Servers because the Hardware has no newer drivers.
Yep it's not Computer Hardware but Construction Site Hardware which is used to level the Earthworks to within 2 cm of Design. It saves Hundreds of Thousand of $ on a smallish Site and Millions on larger Sites by reducing to almost nil wasted fuel and backfilling where too much was removed.
The Hardware Suppliers sell the Laser Sighting Equipment that goes onto the Earthmover's and is fixed around the site and gives away the software that drives it. Instead of paying Microsoft for Fixes to secure the NT4 servers down I have just removed them from any possible connection to the Net. It's far cheaper than paying M$ to fix the problems that they created.
I still have some customers using 98 I at least got them off 95 and moved them to 98SE and XP& 2003 are still a monster in Business with little possibility of being removed in the short term.
Col
It is a lie to say one never paid for Windows updates. What, are you still running 3.1 or something? You can't even run XP any more because MS intentionally broke it. Yet MS charges $300 for Win7, even though I can get a whole computer force bundled with Win7 for less. How is that not illegal?
Working in the education sector they give us a good deal on numerous packages, just recently they came in free of charge and did a phone camp. OK there is some self interest but compared to them every other tech vendor does not compare. We have enough difficulty getting Apple to honour the warranty let alone provide free stuff, it's why we do not teach app development for Iphone, only Android and possibly Win Phone.
Free education software is a marketing investment because it ensures future programmers are hooked on MS tools. That is not being nice or a sign of humanitarian interests. In fact, the process should be illegal. Schools should be using OpenSouce software that is actually better than MS and not vendor specific. Teachers are just too lazy to learn what OpenSource has to offer.
I couldn't agree more. But it goes deeper than programming tools. A student can by Win 7 Ultimate for $20, or Office Pro for $10 at the university book store. Yet when I got to buy it it is $$$$. It's the same software, so how much is it worth again?
To say that teachers are too lazy to learn open source software is not only ignorant, but extremely offensive. How dare you!
I have worked in the school environment for some time now, and I can tell you that my teachers often prefer open source tools. However, we are in the business of preparing our students for the real world, whether that be at a four year college, or at a job where they are most likely going to see Microsoft products. How often have you seen a job posting requiring experience with OpenOffice?
Microsoft understands that schools need to increase access with shrinking budgets. We have a contract with Microsoft now that allows us to roll out more workstations in one year than we could have previously done over five years.
Apple and Adobe on the other hand offer discounts that might as well be an insult, not mention the third party software I have to pay an arm and a leg for just to be able to centrally manage updates.
Microsoft also provides most of their product line for free to Boys & Girls Clubs of America. All over the country, underprivileged youth have access to tools and products from Microsoft that they wouldn't have otherwise.
Microsoft is not perfect, I agree. But this idea that they are just a big bad company out to get us is misguided and naive. You all just followed the MS-hating lemmings right off the cliff!
I have worked in the school environment for some time now, and I can tell you that my teachers often prefer open source tools. However, we are in the business of preparing our students for the real world, whether that be at a four year college, or at a job where they are most likely going to see Microsoft products. How often have you seen a job posting requiring experience with OpenOffice?
Microsoft understands that schools need to increase access with shrinking budgets. We have a contract with Microsoft now that allows us to roll out more workstations in one year than we could have previously done over five years.
Apple and Adobe on the other hand offer discounts that might as well be an insult, not mention the third party software I have to pay an arm and a leg for just to be able to centrally manage updates.
Microsoft also provides most of their product line for free to Boys & Girls Clubs of America. All over the country, underprivileged youth have access to tools and products from Microsoft that they wouldn't have otherwise.
Microsoft is not perfect, I agree. But this idea that they are just a big bad company out to get us is misguided and naive. You all just followed the MS-hating lemmings right off the cliff!
When I agreed with kirk_augustin@ I was not agreeing that teachers are lazy. However, many are mis-guided.
For instance, I don't need an Admin for anything Microsoft, they are a dime a dozen. I do need people well versed in scripting and programming in Linux environments. I do need experienced E-Directory and LDAP people.
I do agree that today's students get thrown the Microsoft Bone rather than the whole cow. They come out of school and say "I Know" then they find out they only "Know" Microsoft or Adobe or ... School should never favor one product.
It is almost like a student saying "I know Algebra", after a month in the class. Well you still have a little ways to go if you want to solve a problem in the real world.
For instance, I don't need an Admin for anything Microsoft, they are a dime a dozen. I do need people well versed in scripting and programming in Linux environments. I do need experienced E-Directory and LDAP people.
I do agree that today's students get thrown the Microsoft Bone rather than the whole cow. They come out of school and say "I Know" then they find out they only "Know" Microsoft or Adobe or ... School should never favor one product.
It is almost like a student saying "I know Algebra", after a month in the class. Well you still have a little ways to go if you want to solve a problem in the real world.
Sure M$ has freebies and sweetheart deals, but they are geared to their best interest such as bulk purchases, contracts, etc. to protect their future revenue stream.
That's the best you could come up with? SQL Server Express? It still has some limitations on what can and can't be done. MySQL still can do a lot more than SSE. But for something as "simple" as WSUS, why bother spending thousands of dollars on an overkill SQL Server?
The first unethical thing M$ is still doing is extorting "Licencing Fees" from companies who choose to use Linux and Android OS. They claim infringement, but they have yet to say what infringes, show any proof, or win a lawsuit, and they have had more than 20 years to do so! Put up or shut up M$! This tactic isn't much different than paying "protection" money back in the 20's. If you didn't pay somehow your business got trashed.
Microsoft was very skillful in building a "partnership" with Novell, which led inevitably to Novell's doom. At the same time Microsoft financed SCO in the SCO v Novell patent lawsuits, draining Novell of it's cash reserves. Novell had no choice but to fight the lawsuit that would not die from a bankrupt company. That sounds ethical.
Has anyone ever tried to decipher good old M$ licensing? The devil himself could not have come up with a more convoluted and complicated system.
Microsoft is a lot of things, ethical is not among them. It would be very interesting to see how they reached the conclusion that M$ is a most ethical company and what companies did not make the grade and why.
Microsoft was very skillful in building a "partnership" with Novell, which led inevitably to Novell's doom. At the same time Microsoft financed SCO in the SCO v Novell patent lawsuits, draining Novell of it's cash reserves. Novell had no choice but to fight the lawsuit that would not die from a bankrupt company. That sounds ethical.
Has anyone ever tried to decipher good old M$ licensing? The devil himself could not have come up with a more convoluted and complicated system.
Microsoft is a lot of things, ethical is not among them. It would be very interesting to see how they reached the conclusion that M$ is a most ethical company and what companies did not make the grade and why.
people are ethical, corporates less so.
Corporate entities are a amalgam of the decisions of people, generally for the purposes of earning profit. Some of the for profit activities include brand image maintenance. That is why corp offices give money to non-profits unless its for tax burden management. Additionally they may be ethical in a sense that they try to follow the law, but immoral from the point of view that the do wrong.
Personally I get a sense that they are trying to manage their larger brand in the face of serious negative personal opinion of its place in the world.
Corporate entities are a amalgam of the decisions of people, generally for the purposes of earning profit. Some of the for profit activities include brand image maintenance. That is why corp offices give money to non-profits unless its for tax burden management. Additionally they may be ethical in a sense that they try to follow the law, but immoral from the point of view that the do wrong.
Personally I get a sense that they are trying to manage their larger brand in the face of serious negative personal opinion of its place in the world.
Maximise shareholder value, no use to me, I'm not a shareholder....
An islamic extremist with a C4 waistcoat, and a desire to ministered to by 20 houris is ethical by their definition...
MS are ethical, hoof'ingray...
An islamic extremist with a C4 waistcoat, and a desire to ministered to by 20 houris is ethical by their definition...
MS are ethical, hoof'ingray...
Corporations will be ethical when the shareholders and officers are held both legally and financially responsible and accountable for the corporation's actions. The whole purpose of incorporating is that none of the owners can be sued for what the corporation does. None of the owners can go to jail for what the corporation does.
When a corporation's entire board of directors goes to jail over the actions of the company, the CEO's do not get to keep their golden parachutes and pay fines for their misdeeds, and the stockholders not only lose the value of the stock, but have to pay fines for the actions of the company they own, then corporations will have an enlightened moment and become more ethical. Right now, corporate law is just a "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card.
When a corporation's entire board of directors goes to jail over the actions of the company, the CEO's do not get to keep their golden parachutes and pay fines for their misdeeds, and the stockholders not only lose the value of the stock, but have to pay fines for the actions of the company they own, then corporations will have an enlightened moment and become more ethical. Right now, corporate law is just a "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card.
How about "I don't know" or "More information is required to make an educated choice?" I don't believe everything just because I read it in a blog somewhere. 
It is not a black or white question that can be answered yes or no. It would have helped to have a couple more choices like "Getting better" and "Still needs improvement". I would vote for getting better.
MS is not as agressive today as they were in the 90's. This may be partly due to the many lawsuites over past practices and it could be partly due to the changing nature of the computer industry.
MS is not as agressive today as they were in the 90's. This may be partly due to the many lawsuites over past practices and it could be partly due to the changing nature of the computer industry.
I remember, about 20 years ago, I bought my first Epson printer. When I called support, I got a knowledgeable American, familiar with the product. And they would wave charges, if warranted. I was a loyal Epson user for at least ten years. But they went down the wrong road, cheaper, less reliable products that consume gallons of expensive ink. In my opinion that was not ethical. I now buy color lasers by HP or Xerox. By the way, I found Xerox ethical in their treatment of me.
... is a self-proclaimed leading international think-tank dedicated to the creation, advancement and sharing of best practices in business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anti-corruption and sustainability. It's financed by the corporations unknown, but that's not the problem, because it's extremely sensitive to avoiding conflicts of interest. Its corporate heart bleeds whenever conflict of interest occurs. Really. Honest. It's 100% true, because Ethisphere?? says so.
I have to agree with jkameleon...just because Ethisphere says so doesn't make it so. Proof will be in the pudding so to speak. MS has a history and it won't go away quickly, there will have to be time shown with eithical behavior and outcome before I can really believe MS has come to the front of the pack. More information is needed on Ethisphere as well. I crawled around on their site and found some information, but no real list as to their "corporate sponsors". I did look at the list of the Most Ethical and was not surprised by some, but others did raise my eyebrows. Jury is still out as far as I am concerned.
it's likely microsoft made a donation to the "ethics-sphere" before the announcement.
otherwise, the ethical thing to do by that organization was to ascertain and consider consumer feedback.
otherwise, the ethical thing to do by that organization was to ascertain and consider consumer feedback.
I've worked with Microsoft in various roles for over 15 years as a systems engineer. I've never been their employee, but I've had the pleasure of working with many of their engineers over the years, including the "bad" years in the mid to late 1990's. As time has gone on, I've seen nothing but improvement from MS's practices. When I've worked with them directly on projects supporting massive infrastructure design and implementations efforts, they've always worked extra hard to make sure I and my colleagues were successful, often for free. For at least the past decade, their agents have always been helpful, fast, and very knowledgeable. I've watched them work knee-deep in proprietary customer data and never make a motion toward unethical behaviors, data theft or any of the many other areas they've been accused of poor behaviors.
I'm proud to support Microsoft and their products, because I know they're virtually always going to be engineered to high standards, supported at an unparalleled level both by staff and by documentation, and that when I have a problem that's genuinely with their product, they stand behind it 100%. Contrast that with, for example, Apple, on whom I can count for only one thing: a guaranteed cycle of planned obsolescence in which they intentionally break previously superb products with poorly architected software updates in order to try and force hardware upgrades (why hello there, iPhone 3G!).
I'm proud to support Microsoft and their products, because I know they're virtually always going to be engineered to high standards, supported at an unparalleled level both by staff and by documentation, and that when I have a problem that's genuinely with their product, they stand behind it 100%. Contrast that with, for example, Apple, on whom I can count for only one thing: a guaranteed cycle of planned obsolescence in which they intentionally break previously superb products with poorly architected software updates in order to try and force hardware upgrades (why hello there, iPhone 3G!).
On a positive note I would say give them a chance and see if they continue buying up or squashing any competitive products out there.
But, what you say about Apple is out of pure ignorance. I haven't worked for Microsoft but I have worked for Apple. They have the absolute best ethics of any company I have seen and worked for. They treat their employees with the utmost respect. They care about their people and their careers. There's only so much backwards compatibility you can have until you have to cut the ties with the past to make room for the future.
Need I remind you oh ignorant one of the trouble and expense they went through to ensure compatibility with their classic OS and OSX??? But, finally they had to cut the ties with classic OS in order to usher in the future. If you don't you'll fall hard.
But, what you say about Apple is out of pure ignorance. I haven't worked for Microsoft but I have worked for Apple. They have the absolute best ethics of any company I have seen and worked for. They treat their employees with the utmost respect. They care about their people and their careers. There's only so much backwards compatibility you can have until you have to cut the ties with the past to make room for the future.
Need I remind you oh ignorant one of the trouble and expense they went through to ensure compatibility with their classic OS and OSX??? But, finally they had to cut the ties with classic OS in order to usher in the future. If you don't you'll fall hard.
I have found with apple products that you have to upgrade many applications if you do any upgrade of the OS. I supported a Mac user and he went from Leapord to Snow Leapord and there were at least two major applicaitons that had to be upgraded. Had a friend that has OS X and he could not apply updates to an iPad because he couldn't get a new enough version of iTunes that would talk to the iPad.
Bill
Bill
I have games and other apps that work in XP that don't work in Windows 7. Same for 2K to XP. Same for 98/ME to 2K. Windows 8 seems to be offering a whole plethora of compatibility problems.
I hear you.. I toyed with Snow Leopard, and saw the same thing with the update to Lion. But, this is an Apple thing? No.
Somehow Apple managed to convert their OS from 32-bit PowerPC code to 32/64bit x86 code, and it hardly made a splash. MS has managed to dredge the 32-to-64bit transition across four OS releases now. It still isn't done, and it's never been pretty.
I hear you.. I toyed with Snow Leopard, and saw the same thing with the update to Lion. But, this is an Apple thing? No.
Somehow Apple managed to convert their OS from 32-bit PowerPC code to 32/64bit x86 code, and it hardly made a splash. MS has managed to dredge the 32-to-64bit transition across four OS releases now. It still isn't done, and it's never been pretty.
Difference is that microsoft supports an OS for 10 years [14 for XP] in comparison to maybe 4-5 years for Apple. So you probably have has 1`0+ years of gaming with Windows XP. By now, if you had a Mac, you probably would of gone from 10.4.x to 10.5.x to 10.6.x to 10.7.x [and paid $30+ for each "upgrade"] and soon 10.8.x while you didn't pay a cent for XPO in 10+ years.
4 OS releases with 32 and 64-bit code? I can name 2: Vista and Win7. XP's 64-bit was used by such a small population there are even more Linux users than it. Win8 doesn't count - hasn't officially come out.
I've had no compatibility issues with 64-bit windows and I'm using a 32-bit Adobe application from 2001 even!
4 OS releases with 32 and 64-bit code? I can name 2: Vista and Win7. XP's 64-bit was used by such a small population there are even more Linux users than it. Win8 doesn't count - hasn't officially come out.
I've had no compatibility issues with 64-bit windows and I'm using a 32-bit Adobe application from 2001 even!
I am including Win XP 64, since it was released commercially, and unless Windows 8 comes out 64-bit only (I doubt it), I count that too.
Your point about the number of updates is somewhat valid. For instance, SP2 didn't break (most) Win XP apps like the full upgrade from XP to say, Vista. Vista broke a lot of things, which might be expected by the introduction of forced security roles.
I still maintain the OS X platform switch will go down in history as one of the smoothest transitions ever. That's an enormous credit to good engineering.
By the way, that $30 upgrade fee also licenses you for a house full of computers, so I consider that fairly reasonable. Yes, MS service packs are free, but major revisions are very expensive. It's just a different pricing structure -- not better, not worse.. just different.
Your point about the number of updates is somewhat valid. For instance, SP2 didn't break (most) Win XP apps like the full upgrade from XP to say, Vista. Vista broke a lot of things, which might be expected by the introduction of forced security roles.
I still maintain the OS X platform switch will go down in history as one of the smoothest transitions ever. That's an enormous credit to good engineering.
By the way, that $30 upgrade fee also licenses you for a house full of computers, so I consider that fairly reasonable. Yes, MS service packs are free, but major revisions are very expensive. It's just a different pricing structure -- not better, not worse.. just different.
When MS releases service packs, that is only fixing its mistakes, not an upgrade. But then again, Vista was not an upgrade either, even though MS made me pay $300 for it. It was a disaster. And then I had to pay another $300 just to get back what I had with XP, by buying Win7.
Apple sued psystars simply because they were competing with Apple. There is the commercial about the guy using the iPad to kill a fly (and the ipad shatters) that just suddenly disappeared from the internet. Then there is the iCloud trademark that Apple just started using even though someone already had it. Yep, Apple is a very ethical company.
Apple sued clone companies because they hacked hardware so OS X could run on their hardware when the EULA states it can only run on Mac hardware made by Apple.
Just a correction here, I do not think psystar hacked any hardware. I believe the issue is they modified the OS so it would install on the hardware they were providing.
I am also sure the EULA does not state that OSX can only be run on Mac hardware made by Apple. Apple doesn't make intel processors does it?
I am also sure the EULA does not state that OSX can only be run on Mac hardware made by Apple. Apple doesn't make intel processors does it?
EULA are not supported by law. Corporations have tried to get various states to pass legislation to support EULAs, but federal copyright laws override and make most EULAs essentially void. No one can legally prevent you from modifying software to run on different hardware. I like Apple more than MS, but Apple is mistaken on what is legal.
I just posted this in response to another post, but it seems to fit here even better.
"Would an ethical company extort money out of other companies because of it's inability to break into that market? Microsoft extorts "Licensing Fees" out of companies that use Android OS or Linux. However, after more than 20 years Microsoft has yet to show what infringes, or win a lawsuit proving infringement. They just say "Your OS infringes pay us money and we won't sue you out of existence." I think I have heard that song and dance before.
Not that much different than the mafia back in the day, when companies paid for "Protection". "You know this area can be kinda rough and dangerous, but if you pay Guido over here every week we will keep you and your business safe." Stand up company you got there in Microsoft too.
"Would an ethical company extort money out of other companies because of it's inability to break into that market? Microsoft extorts "Licensing Fees" out of companies that use Android OS or Linux. However, after more than 20 years Microsoft has yet to show what infringes, or win a lawsuit proving infringement. They just say "Your OS infringes pay us money and we won't sue you out of existence." I think I have heard that song and dance before.
Not that much different than the mafia back in the day, when companies paid for "Protection". "You know this area can be kinda rough and dangerous, but if you pay Guido over here every week we will keep you and your business safe." Stand up company you got there in Microsoft too.
Despite being stuck on iOS 4.2.2, my iPhone 3G still works great. It gets me on the Internet, does Twitter, LinkedIn, Youtube, allows me to listen to music, allows me to play games, and it even allows me to create Office documents (Word, PowerPoint, and Excel) on the go.
I'm still pretty happy with my iPhone 3G, as long as it turns on, does what I want it to do, and has batteries that hold a charge.
I'm still pretty happy with my iPhone 3G, as long as it turns on, does what I want it to do, and has batteries that hold a charge.
The only issues we are having with cell technology is actually coming from ATT who is claiming we need to replace all our phones to comply with the latest upgrades they have made to the towers in our area. We are on EDGE technology, so it will have to get pretty cold here to get me to upgrade. Its not like we are way out of the way. This is southern Vermont.
MS has nothing to be proud about. It has always been the last to come out with a product in any field, and it has always had the slowest and most buggy products. They are the best now only by destroying the better companies and buying their products or developers. The tradition had always been that the OS should be free or only a modest fee. MS is the only company that tries to charge more for the OS than the computer costs. And Windows has always been the least reliable OS anyone has ever made.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
