People are not rational actors, and the myth that we are is incredibly harmful.
- Interests of the shareholders and other stakeholders, who most likely cannot agree on most of their goals, but they will agree on "money = good";
- Competitors who wait for the company to make a mistake they can exploit to get ahead, or possibly kill the company
Combined, these forces all but ensure the company has no choice but to be a amoral profit maximizer, or die.
A different analogy, that doubles down on "corporation is essentially an AI" view, but may make it easier to explain the main point: if you apply Maslow's pyramid to companies, most of them do not have their Physiological and Safety levels met. They operate in survival mode. Rarely, a company "feels" secure enough to ponder long-term visions or some ideals that aren't directly survival-related.
Companies are not perfect optimizers. Arguably not even that strong. If someone in Purchasing is willing to reward their buddy instead of picking the best vendor for the job, well, that happens. It's noise. Doesn't change the overall behavior of the company. And it only happens within limits - do it too much, and the person in Purchasing will find themselves fired, maybe even charged with a crime. If they're too good, maybe they can kill their own company - much like a sickness can kill a human. Other companies will then be more vigilant.
Also worth noting that companies strive to improve their process and develop various means of ensuring and enforcing accountability - this, in essence, is trying to reduce the "noise" of individual humans within the larger AI of the company.
During that time Google was very friendly to FLOSS, and open protocols (remember when GChat was just a XMPP client)
Today MS and Google seems to have flipped, Google now is fully embracing Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, where MS seems to be attempting to wind that back though with mixed success
From what I could see it was also difficult to switch the office suite. My OEM installed trial versions of word, excel, etc. which were set to be opened by default on all related file extensions. Switching to libreoffice was a PITA, I couldnt find a simple, one-click way to change all these. I had to go over them one-by-one.. (.doc, .docx, .dochtml, .docxhtml, .xls, .xlsx, .xlshtml, .xslsxhtml,....)
The only way to actually make a local account is to either (a) refuse to connect to WiFi until after an account is made or (b) disconnect the router while it is trying to talk to Microsoft. Option (a) is inaccessible by the time you realize that there is a problem, and option (b) is ridiculous and needs to be found on third-party suggestions. All so that Microsoft can pull in another email address.
Windows 10 installation has become a maze which only the really savvy can escape with their privacy somewhat in tact.
I never had this bullshit on PRO versions, but I'm connected through cable tho.
Back when I used Gmail, I'd open my email and get not one, but TWO separate things, one a popup box, and one a top bar, telling me I should switch to Chrome, and dismissing it never stuck. It'd come back in a week or so. Even once Edge started running on Chrome code, Google stepped up writing new tricks to claim that Edge was "less secure" because it didn't direct telemetry straight to Google servers.
Google's underhanded push with Chrome has hurt everyone, and unfortunately, Microsoft probably can't "target just Chrome" in retaliating against such messaging, so Firefox gets hit too.
Install a Package Manager like Chocolety [1], AppGet [2] or the new "Official" one WinGet
>>I couldnt find a simple, one-click way to change all these. I had to go over them one-by-one.. (.doc, .docx, .dochtml, .docxhtml, .xls, .xlsx, .xlshtml, .xslsxhtml,....)
Yea MS has tried to bork this, but in the "Default Apps" settings page of the new "Settings" Application, there is a link called "Set Defaults by App" that makes it MUCH easier than what you did which was "Choose Default Apps by File Type"
There are perhaps better anecdotes for reasons to dislike windows...
Personally, I'm still annoyed that removed the File Types settings in Windows 7(?), though some of them have made their way back with the new settings.
Lately, I love what they've been doing. Even github -- there have been disappointments, for sure, but nothing like the egregious misbehavior in the bad old days. But given their history; given Google's "do no evil" bait&switch... I don't want to hand them more power.
It'd be cool if an interested third party could build out an app store that automatically sources from github (and its competitors), though.
That’s called a package repository and there are hundreds (thousands?) of them.
An “App Store” is a vertically integrated package repo.
Element is actually in the F-droid store but the version is outdated.
Do you really believe Microsoft is changing their tactics because they want to?
They needed to change.
Their goal which has always been Platform, around 12 years ago they realized it had to be open open towards everything else than Windows only. Otherwise they would be seriously under pressure.
Why do you think Azure is so popular with other platforms too, other than ms tech?
Microsoft is really really good at setting and reaching goals. They excel at it. And believe you me, that their goal is not to approve and support open source because they shifted their mindset towards it - it's because they had to - and they will make money doing it.
These statements about companies, being kind towards this or that, has to be read carefully. They are savages in the end and will do pretty much anything to win.
I worked at MS for many years. Not any longer.
https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/issues/1863#issuecomme...
If that's true, then why do brands exist?
For most companies, the best way to drive profit is to build a long term relationship of trust with their customers and suppliers.
Edit: this doesn't mean I'm ready to join the Microsoft/Apple/Google/Facebook/Amazon fan club, but I can see that some companies regularly behave better than others, and I'm happy to act on that reputation. Take Oracle, for example.
This is a bogus line of thinking. For example, Apple have a very strong stance on privacy compared to FB and Google.
Does this mean they are more moral or trustworthy when it comes to privacy, or that you should trust them to remain focussed on privacy in the future?
Not at all! Their focus on privacy is a smart business model that they use to differentiate themselves from the competition. As soon as it stops being a smart model, or a better model presents itself, under the bus their focus on privacy will go. Apple being focussed on privacy right now should not be taken as them having a good reputation. They do not care about your privacy. They care about you buying their products. The same applies to all apparent "good" or "moral" behavior of any large company. It's not genuine morality, they don't care about the benefits to you or society at large. They just want you to generate money for them.
By all means, choose products from a company whose presented morality currently aligns with yours. But don't believe that morality is genuine, and don't get hooked on that company. Instead use them, just as they are using you, for as long as it benefits you, then dump them in a second when they inevitably change... Just as they would do to you.
Taking my Oracle example, I'm definitely never going to recommend my company adopts Oracle. Given their historical behaviour, it's just too much risk!
This position that all companies are equally amoral seems 1. blind to reality and 2. to be throwing away useful information.
The likely actions of a company are embedded in their culture, their structure, the people who choose to work there, and the personalities of their leadership. That can all change, but you have the ability to observe that change and punish companies which violate your trust.
When Github restored youtube-dl, they increased user trust while undermining media industry trust. When they pulled popcorntime, they did the reverse.
In each case, they were presumably acting rationally to preserve their relationships as best as they could. But whether or not that benefits you as an individual is more or less a toss of a coin.
Microsoft and Google being recent examples of companies shifting their moral compass fairly quickly.
That's both unfair, and quite frankly lets companies like Boeing off the hook. Executives get paid egregious amounts of money to set the direction of companies. Yes, some do focus solely on profit and it's generally obvious when they do. Some focus on making customers happy at nearly all costs. And there is everything in between. Of course management at all those companies believe their approach will make the company money, but plenty aren't solely focused on maximizing profits, I'd argue MS included.
I'm very sceptical that such a company exists (at least of any size beyond a small restaurant or similar). Can you give an example?
I agree. Sorting huge, multinational, publicly traded companies in friends and enemies list is so obviously bogus and immature that it baffles me that this is so prevalent.
Microsoft is not your enemy. It's not your friend (unless you're one of the shareholders). It's profit driven and amoral. They'll always line up with whatever they believe will maximize profits because that their entire reason for existing.
Apparently Microsoft decided that being more FLOSS friendly (after decades of trying to annihilate these projects, lest we forget) because they decided that it would favor them in the long run.
If they ever decide that they stand to make more profit by throwing the whole github ethos under the bus they will. A few people will make strongly worded blog posts that will reach the top of HN. A few employees might even quit and loudly slap the door on the way out. Then probably nothing will happen.