I was thinking about this, I imagine the midpoint between a cathedral and a bazaar could possibly be a shopping mall... How profitable do shopping malls tend to be? They might have something, if only because they're doing something different with enough marketing steam behind them.

Clearly Apple = Good (they started this new smartphone revolution, and care more about consumers than careers), Windows = Bad (will do anything to try to maintain their monopoly), and Google = Ugly (not really ugly, but they seem to be letting the carriers have more control).

I thought Hacker News was above the juvenile 'M$' but guess I was wrong.

>Is Windows Phone 7 going to be another cathedral, a bazaar, or will it be a half-assed combination of the two?

Right now it looks like a good combination. Good variety in hardware(for example, phones with real keyboard unlike the iPhone) while still retaining the ability to directly update the software(no shipping of old versions that take ages to get updated, if they get done at all, like Android).

You or I may not agree wit the characterization, but I hardly see this as immature. Informal, perhaps, in comparison to writing "Microsoft (who worship at the Temple of Mammon)..." But I don't see it as childish and juvenile.

There is another possibility. If "M$" has been regularly used by people who are juvenile in other ways, perhaps using "M$" in trollish flamewars and ad hominem diatribes, it can become guilty through association with juvenile rants. Is that the problem here? That the nickname has been used so often by people acting in a juvenile way that it has unpleasant overtones you perceive that are invisible to someone like myself who doesn't share your life experience?

Imagine if people started their posts with 'Facebook, who hate privacy, have just...', or 'Apple, who hate freedom, have now...', or 'Google, who are spying on you, are about to...'

That would be pretty pathetic.

Your description of the alleged meaning of this nickname is similar to my understanding of an ad hominem, however it differs in substantial ways. When Microsoft is the subject of a discussion, an assertion about their motivations is not an ad hominem: An assertion about one of the persons participating in the debate would be an ad hominem.

So what we have is an assertion about Microsoft's motivations and an unfounded argument that this is the cause for some perceived product woes. This is clearly weak rhetoric (and trivially fallacious: Apple seems to do just fine lusting after money).

But I am left rubbing my chin in confusion by your assertion that using the nickname automatically means that you're arguing that there is a problem with their products. My understanding is that the problem with their products is that have no taste. Someone using "M$" could be thinking that their avarice means that they behave in monopolistic ways, or that they have a certain type of internal company culture, or any number of things.

But there is no need to assume what they are saying or to jump to some conclusion about what they are claiming: I can simply read what they write. If they write "M$ are unable to ship good products," I can argue with that statement directly instead of arguing with their use of the nickname.

As for your second paragraph... Wow. Imagine if I were to make up a whole list of things that people are not saying and use it to stir up all kinds of emotional feelings as a way of trying to convince you that using a nickname I don't like was pathetic. Would that add to the discussion?

I think I am going to stop right here. I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money. You see a nickname dragging all sorts of baggage and claims and unfounded arguments around. You feel the need to exert social pressure to eliminate it, including characterizing it in an insulting fashion ("juvenile").

I understand what you are saying, and that is quite enough for me.

>I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money.

The original commenter clarified that it meant something along the lines of 'Microsoft, who has money'. That shows that it's a term that can result in a lot of confusion, but I have seen it mostly used as a put down by people who think it's cool to use it.

What we have here is a de-facto "putting words into other people's mouths." What that means to me is, "Microsoft, who has money." It was meant in an informal and not a slur. In any case, how in the world can you be "ad hominem" against a corporation?

Where in my comment, or in my entire history of comments is there any kind of sentiment of the kind you describe. If anything, my position towards Microsoft has always been, "they're clueless about UX."

As an aside, I don't see anything strange about an ad hominem against a corporation, it's still an attack against the source of the argument and not the argument itself. Plus, a corporation is after all a legal person.

I am glad you admitted your putting words into my mouth. Let me note that this resulted in quite a few meta-comments! I could not let your mischaracterization go unchallenged. Note also that your mischaracterization is itself a meta-comment. Had it not been written in the first place, it would have benefitted the S/N ratio of HN dramatically!

FTFY. Apparently, you are someone who actually takes this sort of thing seriously.