mattwallaert

Actually, Microsoft has very easy feedback systems by which you can tell us what you think about basically every single product we have. So you can freely say what you don't like - you can even do it here and probably even get a few employees like me to answer back.

As for your contention that people's feelings about Microsoft are based on rational decision making - are you making the case that that is true of the majority of users? If so, that case seems fundamentally untrue. Look at studies of Bing results versus Google results: in a brand-blind test, people prefer Bing over Google. If you switch the label, the thing people prefer most is Google brand with Bing results. It is abundantly clear that there is much more to how people feel about Microsoft than rationality, and I can't think of a credible scientist who would say otherwise.

Sorry, I'm a little confused as to how you think Microsoft has historically made products that are "irrelevant to the end user", when Microsoft powers the majority of computing activity worldwide and has for more 20 years.

What it feels like you may instead be trying to say is "I don't like Windows 8 and think Linux/OS X are better", which is certainly a valid opinion statement. I wouldn't, however, labor under the misunderstanding that Microsoft doesn't care about users - hyperbole aside, do you actually think that of a company of about 100K people doesn't care about other people?

If you've ever worked on a big tech product, you know that agonizing amounts of attention are spent worrying about even the smallest details. Ultimately, that might mean that we don't always make the best possible decision, but I think it would be tough to say that Microsoft "half-assed" much.

It makes sense that you don't like the product; not everyone does. But it seems foolish to equate your dislike with a) it being objectively bad, b) it being half-assed, c) it being irrelevant (particularly when it plays a huge role in the world), or d) that the people creating it don't care about it or you. Indeed, d) is particularly important - isn't it grand that you live in a tech world where someone like me, who works at Microsoft, cares about your thoughts and feelings, even though you don't use Windows?

Microsoft (and many other companies) don't just care about the people who use our products...we also care about the people who don't.

There is a difference between saying "chairs wouldn't exist without Microsoft" and "Microsoft had a hand in making possible the chair you currently sit in". To be clear, I'm making the second argument - that there is a disproportionate amount of vitriol directed at Microsoft (and even in this thread) given the role that it has played in enabling human advancement.

Microsoft: making chairs cheaper for 30 years. =]

I honestly don't know how to reply to that kind of argument, in that it feels like the evidence both overwhelming and widely available that Microsoft has, in fact, provided innovation. Look at the sheer number of patents the company holds; we can debate patent law until the end of days, but in the meantime, it is worth looking at the things that Microsoft brought to market. And then look at Microsoft Research, which produces literally thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers every year, dealing with numerous advancements in technology.

Ford is an interesting example. Arguably, without Ford's advancements in manufacturing, automation, and mass industrialization, we don't get the modern car, which unquestionably has made nuclear power possible. In a very Civilization way, you can't get to nuclear power without modern transportation.

So what you seem to be suggesting is a counterfactual world where some other software (let's say Apples, for argument's sake) rose to prominence instead of Microsoft. It is possible that they might also have done an amazing job of putting a PC on every desk. But we have no way of knowing that and what we do know, in the reality in which we currently live, that Microsoft did an excellent job of pushing computing out of the lab and into the home.

And there seems to me to be decent evidence that we'll continue to make those sort of innovations that push technology forward. While you're welcome to call me "silly", I think saying that Microsoft has introduced absolutely no advancements to the marketplace is silly. So maybe we simply can't come to a place of agreement because we're not working from the same set of facts?

Sorry, perhaps I made the point badly: you're nodding at exactly what I was trying to say. The reason to get angry about the things people produce is for their actual social ramifications (like slavery), not for the fact that they moved technology forward in a way that discontinued the use of another technology.

Hence, it makes perfect sense to take pot shots at Microsoft if you think we actually and materially harmed society in the way that slavery did. But, and I could be wrong, it feels like most people are not critiquing not for actual damage but because in rising to popularity, other technologies did not.

Thanks for clarifying; I'm just a damn scientist, so things that are clear in my head don't always come out fully on screen. Truly appreciated.

First, nobody at Microsoft posted an article. I answered a question on Quora, before the Yale incident even occurred. Quora reached out and asked if they could publish on Forbes, which I said was fine. I updated to add the Yale example, which has already been discussed on HN, so I don't rehash, but please note nobody has ever suggested Yale lied. I've suggested they did not great science, which is very much not the same thing.

The statement "Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors" seems to be exactly what I'm talking about. Can you honestly say that you think, in the many years that Microsoft have been producing some incredibly popular software that powers much of what makes modern business productive, that the company has done absolutely no good for anyone? If that's your actual belief, I don't even know how to discuss this with you, as it just seems transparently to be untrue. What is the alternative that you think would have powered this revolution? Nobody is going "damn, that cotton gin forced out all those sickle makers, they really hurt society". Bringing advancements to market has helped human society immensely; how do you see the enhancements Microsoft has brought differently?

This was an honest answer on Quora to a question that I think is interesting. It is how I actually feel. Quora reached out to ask me if they could publish it on Forbes, and I said it was fine, because it was already public and out there.

You seem to be suggesting that the only way someone could want to work at Microsoft and feel this way is if they are a shill. Isn't that exactly what I just wrote about, as basic lack of respect for the people who choose to build at Microsoft?

Let's take altruism as "devotion to the welfare of others". It is pretty hard to argue that Bing for Schools is anything but that - we looked at what we could create that would be good for kids and then we fought our way uphill to be able to offer it. Does it gain us market share? Hopefully yes. But that doesn't make it not altruistic.

We could do what Google is doing and advertise to kids. We are choosing not to do that. How is that anything but good?

Well, as the guy behind Bing for Schools, let me suggest an alternate world. Let's pretend Microsoft simply blinked out of existence. Can you name any software package as well integrated, as powerful, and as empowering for students as Office? You said that putting Office in the hands of students can't possibly be beneficial to anyone but Microsoft. But that's EXACTLY what I'm writing about. Let's pretend it was free and you took off the Microsoft brand; Office absolutely creates huge efficiencies in the ability of students to create, to learn, and to share. But because it has MSFT on it, you seem to be suggesting that it must necessarily be bad for kids.

I actually don't think we should draw the line: it takes many, many people working together to create the world we live in. My point was that we should operate on a basic level of respect for those people, rather than simply taking pot shots at them based on branding.

You are absolutely right that the janitor has a role, as does the barista, and I afford both of those people immense amounts of respect in my daily life. I don't look at the things they do and say "simply because you are a barista, I am going to dislike this."

And yet there are many people, especially in tech, who are willing to take pot shots at something just because it was produced by Microsoft. My answer was an attempt to look at that critically.

I'm not asking for a magic privilege. I'm asking people to step back and evaluate what Microsoft is actually doing. Take Bing, for example; you strip the brand off and people actually prefer our results. Take an honest look at the products we produce and still don't choose to use them? Totally fine. But it is important that people do take that step back - we can't let tech be ruled by branding only.

Actually, I just wrote this as an honest Quora answer. Quora then reached out and asked if they could publish to Forbes.

Well noted! I actually wrote about this very psych effect on the Bing blog; if Google doesn't give you a good result, its your fault. If Bing doesn't, its Bing's fault. This is common in situations where we go in with a bias.

(Note: I work for Bing.)

Are you within the US? Unfortunately, Bing It On is only available in the US and China at the moment.

(Note: I work for Bing.)

I went to a liberal arts college (Swarthmore) and I have to say: there is no way my friends are representative of the average American. grins Only one in four adult Americans has a college degree. Average income: 30K. Building search that appeals just to my friends is not my, or Bing's, mission.

(Note: I work for Bing.)

Are your friends people like you? Which engine do you like? Is it possible that maybe your friends aren't a representative sample of the average searcher?

(Note: I work for Bing.)

Actually, Bing is working better outside the US than it has previously and we continue to make heavy investments in other markets. But you're correct, Bing It On only exists in the US and China at the moment.

(Note: I work for Bing.)

And this is precisely why a 3rd party does our testing: so that these sort of manipulations don't creep in.

(Note: I work for Bing.)

It is getting increasingly hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison (social sidebar, snapshot, etc.). The best we can do is try to narrow down to just the web results, for the moment.

(Note: I work for Bing.)

This is why we don't track the Bing It On challenge itself and instead do lab studies; on the website, it is fairly easy to game if you're trying to. Though every once in awhile, having seen it a million times, I'm still wrong about which one I think is which, particularly since Google changed their results to look more like ours.

(Note: I work for Bing.)

That's a remarkably clear-headed analysis; thanks for that. We at Bing don't always get the courtesy of people actually thinking deeply about what we do. =]

(Note: I work for Bing.)

Except they split the sample into three, thereby reducing the sample size (and power) in thirds. What matters is that there are still large enough to run significance tests on, both in the original claim studies and Ayers' study.

(Note: I work for Bing.)

You're correct, Bing It On is US only (although I believe there is also a Chinese version). As for Uruguay, we're always working to improve our international coverage - check back soon!

(Note: I work for Bing.)