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.
The market share of Microsoft in the desktop computing business in no way represents any kind of quality. Nor does it in any way mean that your users like your product. If I look around me in any office, I see people constantly fighting their computers as a result of the worst user experience on the planet.
The main reason for Microsoft's market share is a historical one: They partnered with IBM in the 80s, then PCs (IBM compatibles) became the de facto standard.
Add to this the abuse to the progression of the Web that is Internet Explorer. As many of the HN readers are web developers, well, do the math.
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.
Were chair prices spiraling out of control before DOS was released? Something like 40% of office furniture is made by american prisoners, and I have a feeling they're not using Windows while making it. Paying workers <$0.15 an hour is what is making chairs cheaper.
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?
Again, Microsoft never brought any advances to those industries. They provided a platform (closely identical to those offered by numerous alternatives) on which the real software that made these advancements was hosted on. Your argument is the same as saying that Ford is responsible for nuclear power because their trucks deliver the fuel to the plants. If there was no Ford, then Toyota trucks could deliver the same fuel with no noticeable differences to anyone or the industry. Same for Windows and plant controller software that runs on it.
So if you agree that Ford did not do the nuclear industry any favours, you must accept that Microsoft did not do the manufacturing industry any favours. Both companies simply got a nice income for providing a necessary but widely available resource. Saying Microsoft is the one bringing the advancements is just silly.
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?
Ok, while I might agree that surely Microsoft has been beneficial to someone over the years other than Microsoft, and while I might also say that I preferred various versions of Windows to Mac or forms of Linux up until some years ago and I have quite a bit of experience with Microsoft technologies that I don't regret that much, when you say something like this 'Nobody is going "damn, that cotton gin forced out all those sickle makers, they really hurt society".' it is pretty ludicrous because HEY! people think the cotton gin hurt society for a whole other reason than it drove out the sickle makers!!
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.
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?
No, I don't think everyone who works at MS is a shill. I think the average MS engineer goes home and can put their Microsoft boosting away. It's only the people who professionally represent MS, who's job it might to say sell Bing to schools or similar stuff, who have to be always on, always convinced that MS is good.
And Yes, I agree I'm demonstrating some of your point. I think you were honest on the basic point. There's basic lack of respect. It must be hard. I don't know how to help you there. I try to focus my anger on the people with decision making power.
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.
Most of the world, and even the people in the US aren't using desktop computers daily... using any tool that ties them mostly to a desktop platform, or an also-ran mobile platform is not doing them any favors.
IMHO, if the Office division were actually able to run as a separated business unit from the whims of Windows, they would be MUCH better off.
I think that as office suites go, MS Office is absolutely the best of breed. However, there isn't much of anything that it offers that gives an elementary student an advantage over a pre-configured linux convertible tablet with Libre Office.
I like windows.. it's a consistent platform that isn't subject to an incredibly fragmented desktop/application space. IMHO IIS is an incredibly good web server. VS is a great IDE, with a wonderful level of integration for devops environments.
That said, I don't feel that Windows has much of a life left in it, and that 10 years from now, it will be relegated to the same role that Solaris or AIX workstations were in the early-mid 90's, a developer platform for server deployments. There's money to be made there in the long run, sure... but if MS really wants to succeed, it needs to allow the windows core os to develop apart from the desktop, server and mobile spaces.. and for the VS and Office teams to operate apart from that. It would also do well to let competitive products rise from within. Both in terms of support, as well as vision.
Go to skydrive.live.com, create an Office document, edit it. Note that the experience is significantly better than any other online office suite. Do the moonwalk.
I don't think anyone is arguing that if Microsoft blinked out of existence, no one would be inconvenienced.
What a lot of people ARE saying is that "if not Microsoft, someone else."
If Microsoft never bought the software that eventually turned out to be Office, someone else would have provided a solution. If Microsoft hadn't bought (and resold) QDOS, someone else would have provided an operating system for IBM, and people who make chairs wouldn't have seen a big difference today.
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 know that Microsoft Engineers have pulled off a large number of complex technical feats over the decades, and this is admirable.
Unfortunately, all this doesn’t translate into a smooth day-to-day experience for the end user, which is why all the hate builds up. People contrast this with the relatively smooth and fluid experience on say, Apple products. They then conclude Microsoft is garbage. I understand that in some (note, some) cases, MS isn’t even directly responsible for the issues. For example, Enterprise IT departments tend to cram massive amounts of software into boxes with moderate specs, leading to a slowdown in performance.
I can’t think of any practical solution for all this. Some radical re-engineering without regard for backwards compatibility, accompanied by strict specifications for minimum hardware requirements maybe? Will take too much of Management willpower to fly. So I’m sorry to say, Microsoft and its employees will continue to be ridiculed for some more time to come.
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.
I personally don't like the haters.. and of all tech companies, Sony is probably the only one I won't use because of politics against their brand/management decisions. They've done some cool things, and BluRay was a better format than HD-DVD, but the market was leaning towards HD-DVD when backroom deals killed that. (not to mention rootkits, etc)
Many people feel the same about MS. What I find issue with is that people will completely dislike a solution for the brand alone. I've seen this for years when I've suggested/supported Mono in Linux. .Net is a pretty damned good platform/runtime.
I think it's a perfectly valid choice to not run something because of the company that makes it. Lambasting something for the same reasons, in a non-technical fashion isn't so great.
Many of the haters will poo-poo on anything. In my household I have Android on my phone and tablet, an osx macbook pro for my laptop, a windows desktop, an htpc now running ubuntu/xbmc (was running win7 before). A NAS running FreeNAS (BSD), and a handful of other devices.
I'm not tied to any one platform, and like most people don't care too much about what I run, as long as it works. I develop software for a living, and most of that has run on Windows. I appreciate that there are great, brilliant, and wonderful people at MS. I also recognize that many of it's management decisions have been bad for the larger community. Not to mention the damage being done to some what could be better divisions at MS.
"What I find issue with is that people will completely dislike a solution for the brand alone. I've seen this for years when I've suggested/supported Mono in Linux."
To be fair, Mono never delivered on its promises. There must be tonnes of .Net applications that Linux users would have been thrilled to get on their platform. Yet the only ones I have seen running on Mono were the ones that were specifically targeting Mono, not ones that were running on windows and just happened to find their way to Linux.
So, either most .Net applications are crap that no one really cares about or they were tied to the windows platform.
Of course, it could just be blind, unmotivated hatred, but that's not how I've perceived it.
IMHO Mono offers nicer constructs for a higher level runtime that can utilize lower level system libraries with less friction. Compared to Java+JNI, C# is a dream.
Most of the applications that don't work tend to either utilize windows specific features, or use components that do likewise. With XAML, the fate is somewhat sealed in terms of cross-platform applications.
ASP.Net apps tend to run with little/minor modification, however are usually written towards MS-SQL server, so they are tethered there. You're right that most cross-platform Mono apps are written as such.
Personally, I don't care if a Mono app doesn't run in Windows, or ties to libraries that aren't or are difficult to bundle for windows. I still really like C# as a language, and prefer Mono to a lot of alternative higher level systems.
That said, if Node gets some good UI integration for Gnome, all bets are off imho. I really love node.js + npm, and if I can write desktop UI with it, that will be what I use for just about everything. (There are a few libraries/bindings, but most are incomplete, and some are tethered to a browser-based UI, which I don't mind too much, but are forks from node proper)
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.