Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Someday You'll Hate Apple (And Google Too)

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the if-that-day-hasn't-arrived-already dept.

Businesses 734

jfruhlinger writes "Think today's world, where Apple is the innovative underdog, Google is the company that does no evil, and Microsoft sits atop its throne as ruler of an evil empire. Will this state of affairs last forever? You must not remember the days when everybody loved that scrappy upstart Bill Gates. Don Reisinger muses on the fickleness of consumer loves and hates. 'It's that same [level of] success and its own questionable privacy practices that will lead to Google's PR downfall and propel it into a position of disdain going forward. Trust me, the future of Apple and Google may look bright from an economic standpoint, but these companies will be hated one day too. Sad, but true.'"

cancel ×

734 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Trout! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856096)

I am a FISH!

Re:First Trout! (0, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856208)

Thread hijacked.

Nobody ever liked bill gates.. he made his fame and first fortune writing Altair BASIC and trying to sell it to the Homebrew Computer Club. One guy got ahold of the tape and copied it for everyone else in the club.. nobody even understood that gates wanted to keep his program proprietary because that idea was just completely unheard-of.

Re:First Trout! (3, Insightful)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856444)

Well hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue later, I'd say Gates was spot on.

I like Gates. I wouldn't necessarily think him to be the most ethical of business men but in business you win or you die. He plays to win.

Re:First Trout! (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856482)

He was spot-on in what would make him obscene rich, not what's right..

One day? (5, Insightful)

Pope (17780) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856100)

Even without the internet, people have been hating Apple for decades. Usenet and forums just made it easier for them to spew their opinions about.

Blind devotion to *anything* is questionable.

Re:One day? (1, Insightful)

leicaman (1260836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856132)

Yeah, just read the above post and you can see irrational hatred is everywhere, has always been there and regardless of whether it's deserved or not, people with axes to grind will always tilt at windmills.

Re:One day? (5, Interesting)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856406)

Hate Apple? I don't remember anyone hating apple, although they did say their prices were too high in the 1980s.

And Bill Gates:

I never had an opinion about him, but I hated the IBM/MS-DOS empire which symbolized a lack of progress in the 80s (and in some respects still do). While I was creating music on my Ataris and Commodores, the MS-DOS machines were still going "beep" with a mere 4 colors. While my Amiga was running a dozen programs at the same time, Microsoft machines were still limited to just a single task.

By rights IBM/Microsoft PCs should have died while the innovators at Atari, Commodore, Amiga rose to the top with their multimedia machines.

But success and innovation aren't always the same thing.

No, we hated Apple from time to time (5, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856526)

Crappy, closed-technology machines. The cult of the single-button mouse. Reseller programs from hell. Lovely laser printers that became ultimately useless. Two wire AppleTalk networks with all of the speed of ISDN on a good day. Cute little useless Newtons. Servers that could never rise above simple workgroup needs. Special connections and exceptions needed to network with anything else but perhaps NFS or wicked Novell patches. Wonderful and proprietary (given few others used them) PPC CPUs. I'm sure others can count the way. Others can see the bloom on the rose, and I still have marks from the thorns. Oddly, I still use a PowerBook G4, alongside a heavy-duty (and less expensive) HP core-duo notebook. Only for games, of course....

Speaking of Google (2, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856284)

is anyone thinking they should really remember to "don't be evil" when it comes to all these crap-ass browser plugins? EVERY TIME I get called in to help a user because "my internet is crashing", it's because Google Crapbar slunk in alongside something else they installed, and is crashing on IE's loadup.

I mean, come on. WE DON'T NEED YOUR INVASIVE CRAPBAR, IF WE WANT TO SEARCH THE BROWSER HAS A FUCKING SEARCH FIELD BUILT RIGHT IN.

Re:Speaking of Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856454)

fucking seconded

Re:One day? (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856372)

This is indeed true.

Everyone can find someone to hate them. The important point is that Microsoft are hated by their own customers, and it's probably true that Google and Apple will be too.

Re:One day? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856478)

Blind devotion to *anything* is questionable.

Amen!

Not quite the same (1, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856104)

See, Apple and Google wrote their own software from the ground up. Bill Gates bought DOS from another programmer, and for BASIC took a large amount of publically accessible code from the homebrew club, and decided he would put a copyright on it since no one else had bothered. He basically stole the work from other poeple and made his fortune. For that reason alone I will never have respect for microsoft.

Re:Not quite the same (4, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856150)

Apple and Google's current offerings being made from the ground up? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Re:Not quite the same (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856196)

Google sells their API, which they wrote from the ground up. The only thing they use that isn't theirs is *occasionally* zope/plone and whatever web server du jour. Apple built one of the first computers, wrote their own OS which for a very long time didn't even use standard cabling methods that the rest of the world did (IDE ribbons cabled in reverse?! wtf!?). Now the modern MacOS does use BSD code, so I will concede that one. But the prior OS's were 100% apple.

Re:Not quite the same (5, Informative)

linumax (910946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856336)

Apple and Google wrote their own software from the ground up. Bill Gates bought DOS from another programmer

The only thing they use that isn't theirs is *occasionally* zope/plone and whatever web server du jour.
Umm... Google Maps?! Youtube? Picasa? Google Earth?

and in Apple's case, Darwin that you conceded, Filemaker? iTunes (not the store) ?

others are pointing out more.
Are you RDF positive?

Re:Not quite the same (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856396)

Apparently you are failing to realize that software has existed beyond modern applications. There were 9 other versions of MacOS before OSX, built to run on powerPC processors. These did not involve darwin, itunes, or other now-famous apple software. I'm talking about legacy software and the origins of the companies, not the current companies.

Re:Not quite the same (2, Insightful)

linumax (910946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856622)

Be careful now! If you start tracking things back to the old times, you might find out that Apple stole some basic ideas crucial to its success on desktop from one company and the sued another company for doing exactly the same thing.

What matters today is that MacOSX and iTunes are 'defining characteristics' of Apple and as long as they do the job right, I as a consumer don't really care where they came from, same goes for any other company.

Re:Not quite the same (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856342)

The Apple series of 8-bit computers used Microsoft's Basic - they didn't write it "from the ground up". However, they did write the original MacOS from the ground up. The current MacOS is heavily modified Mach kernel, BSD tidbits, and NextStep APIs - though it does still include a subset (superset?) of the old Mac APIs.

Even their hardware, which was pretty much done in-house, has been largely based on standards - albeit different ones from those found in PCs. NuBus, for example, was a TI technology. The current Macs are almost bog-standard PCs.

I'm not taking anything away from Apple - they've had a lot of very impressive hardware/software that was their own invention. But to say that they wrote everything from the ground up isn't really true.

Re:Not quite the same (3, Informative)

Detritus (11846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856442)

Woz wrote Apple BASIC, also known as Integer BASIC. Applesoft BASIC was a later product.

Re:Not quite the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856168)

Apple wrote their software from the ground up without buying it? I guess that multi-million dollar purchase of NeXT had nothing to do with OS X?

Re:Not quite the same (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856218)

Yea but that was Steve Jobs company... So it was basicly Apple 2 until Apple got them back.

Re:Not quite the same (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856188)

See, Apple and Google wrote their own software from the ground up.

lolwut? [apple.com]

Re:Not quite the same (1)

skeletor935 (790212) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856202)

See, Apple and Google wrote their own software from the ground up. Bill Gates bought DOS from another programmer, and for BASIC took a large amount of publically accessible code from the homebrew club, and decided he would put a copyright on it since no one else had bothered. He basically stole the work from other poeple and made his fortune. For that reason alone I will never have respect for microsoft. I think you completely missed the point of the article, or actually-- did you even read the synopsis?

Re:Not quite the same (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856216)

Most of Google's newer products were acquired. I'm not sure about Apple.

Re:Not quite the same (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856238)

I think most of my like for plucky upstart MS was because of how such a little company could manipulate a much larger company (IBM). The story of Bill Gates selling them an OS that he did not yet have is classic. He was reckless and successful and dishonest at the same time, and it was kind of bad-ass and cool. They kept on screwing Big Blue right up through their inheritance of the OS2 code for Windows NT, and it was a little bit beautiful in a sick sort of way.

The thing is, though, they didn't really do anything terribly innovative. DOS is just a close kissing cousin of CP/M, and if Bill had failed IBM would have paid someone else for their copy of CP/M, or just bought the real thing. Microsoft was really just a broker. Even their much-heralded office suite was nothing special until all of the competition was beaten away and no one could afford to make a competitive product. In the end, it was easy to dislike them.

Contrast this with my like for Google and Apple, where I actually like the products that they make. As long as they keep making great products, I'll probably keep liking those companies - it has very little to do with their corporate policies (unless the policies become "screw the customer").

Re:Not quite the same (1)

mraudigy (1193551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856320)

You are quite right that there is a substantial difference between Microsoft and Apple/Google. After all, there is a big difference between stealing and developing your own. But regardless of HOW a company obtained their market-share or consumer-base (or whatever fancy term you want to use), the fact still remains that power and control will eventually bring about consumer hate and there will always be that "saving grace". Microsoft defeats evil IBM, Microsoft becomes evil. Eventually Apple defeats the evil Microsoft and becomes the evil Apple, only to be "destroyed" later by something else. Its an endless cycle of destroying evil.

Re:Not quite the same (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856362)

didn't apple 'use' bsd and KHTML? and probably some other stuff e.g. Intel CPU's and then add their vendor lock-in that they love so much and I hate so much.

Re:Not quite the same (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856616)

didn't apple 'use' bsd and KHTML?
Yeah, I don't think we like Apple just because they wrote software. I think we like them because they make neat products. That they work fairly well with open source groups is just gravy. The BSD license doesn't require releasing changed source, but they put out Darwin. KHTML and Apple have had a rocky relationship, but I think that they are doing pretty well currently.

Intel CPU's
I think that they have used Intel's CPUs for a very long time. The Apple ][ series was all Intel, for instance. The Mac was Motorola, then IBM, and now Intel - but it has changed architectures completely twice.

vendor lock-in
I'm unpopular for this, but I like their "vendor lock-in". It ensures that they have a finite number of hardware test cases, and makes the Mac pretty stable overall. I hardly ever have any surprises with hardware or software installs, because my configuration is standard and has been tested. Windows is much better these days, but even recently I ran into a situation where the supposedly "standard" CD-ROM drive that I bought was not compatible with my motherboard for some reason. Oh, it worked superficially, but had a very high error rate. After hours of debugging and cable swaps, I finally found out that it was a known incompatibility. Ugh. All for a $20 drive! I do admit frustration with no standalone desktops being available in the $1000 range, though. Can't blame folks for putting together these franken-Macs.

Besides, with the Apple machines supporting Windows, there's no real vendor lock-in anymore. If Apple went out of business tomorrow, you'd still have a perfectly functional Windows machine.

Re:Not quite the same (1)

bradm (27075) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856402)

To continue in that vein, exactly which consumers "loved" Microsoft's products? They were bundled in with the machine choice, and they weren't an explicit brand choice. Do consumers "love" the tires that come with their cars?

We tolerated Microsoft's products (intially), because they were essentially "free", especially by comparison to the alternatives, which in those days were minicomputer OSes, and CP/M. We didn't pretend that they were innovative or even close to technical parity. Go look at the DOS 3.3 API. Or 2.1.

Re:Not quite the same (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856414)

Bill Gates bought DOS from another programmer, and for BASIC took a large amount of publically accessible code from the homebrew club, and decided he would put a copyright on it since no one else had bothered.
You're right on DOS, but BASIC? Um, no. Try again. Bill Gates was the first guy to shove a fully-functional BASIC interpreter into 4K. And FAT? It wasn't developed for MS-DOS or Q-DOS (or CP/M). It was developed first for BASIC.

Re:Not quite the same (2, Informative)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856472)

Watch Revolution OS, and the Pirates of Silicon Valley and rethink that. Bill Gates stole a large amount of publically available code to create Altair BASIC. He did some work with it, but nothing compared to what he took - without attribution.

Re:Not quite the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856492)

Apple, though innovative, had to start somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD#Derivatives [wikipedia.org]

It's human nature to 'borrow'.

Re:Not quite the same (4, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856498)

I find it difficult to believe Gates stole Microsoft BASIC from his local user group.

HE was the one who wrote the famous CUG letter about not stealing software. For him to lecture his fellow club members about not stealing, and then do it himself, would be hypocritical.

Oh wait.

Re:Not quite the same (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856550)

Not sure about Google, but if you know your history, they all pretty much stole from other companies - if you can really call it that. The whole concept of the GUI came from Xerox. Both Apple and MS stole from them. Windows in it's current incarnations is built more from the ground up with MS code then Mac OSX. I'm not saying either is better... I'm just saying you're absolutely wrong. OSX is based off of some form of Unix... BSD, I think.

See it everywhere (1)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856106)

I think people feel more invested in a smaller company, as though they personally had some hand in its success.

Re:See it everywhere (2, Insightful)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856178)

I think people feel more invested in a smaller company, as though they personally had some hand in its success.
And everyone wants to root for the underdog. When they become the top dog, time to root for a competitor.

I posted a response to someone else's MS hating/Apple loving post that basically stated this article's points and was modded -1 Troll. I went back to my mom's basement and cried.

Re:See it everywhere (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856242)

There's also a business savvy reason for this... no empire lasts forever. Investing in the company that holds the most market share may seem like a sure thing.. but once you're at the very top there's really no where to go but down. The underdogs have room to grow, so while they're riskier, they have a much greater possibility to return profits for investors.

Re:See it everywhere (5, Interesting)

cluckshot (658931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856474)

The big reason that big success companies become hated is that they try to change the way they gained their success and horde everything for themselves. If Google, or others try to do this they too will get the boot from esteem. Most people do not mind a company trying to profit. I don't.

Examples include Walmart. That outfit started out as a country store which got smart in finance but remembered to serve its customers well and and always made sure to involve the local industry in the marketing plan. Then the kids and finance guys took over from Sam Walton and to say the least, instantly the buy local and support your community stuff went the way of the dinosaurs. Bill Gates at the famous evil empire used to brag about making many other people into millionaires. He made a fortune in the USA and hiring Americans to do it. Then he got rich and decided that he should keep all the money to himself. Being as rich as 4 or 5 US States wasn't enough for him. He just had to move on to China, India and the like, forgetting the guys who made him rich. Then he decided to rent his software for developers in the USA for about $2000 a year. At the same time he practically gave it away in India and China. Well it is no wonder the programmers who were living well with him suddenly became the enemies of the empire.

I know a company McKee Baking in Collegedale Tn. This company has made its original owners and heirs quite wealthy. Nobody is anything but proud of them for their pretty successful baking empire. The reason is that they pay well, and have not tried to dump the people who made their fortune possible. If they ever do I assure you their goodwill will go with it. This is pretty simple stuff people. All you have to do if you get big is not to stomp on people and just go on earning your living. It makes friends and deters enemies.

In the case of Microsoft Corporation, they undertook about 10 years ago to begin to completely destroy the careers of American Programmers. They are hated for it now. Their product lines are not growing and are shuddering with competition because they have just about destroyed any rational reason to partner with them. Google on the other hand is for the time being a friendly helpful and cooperative giant. As long as it stays so it will be so. Once burned the good will of such a company is probably not recoverable. Microsoft will be big for some time but it is in decline and it is it's own fault. If I as a programmer could come and pitch a good new idea and get it moved on to production with their cooperation and partnership, they could be winning but they are refusing to do that. Everybody who tries this game with them loses.

Is this really surprising? (4, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856112)

I mean, Google is easier to see, since it already has a majority marketshare in its main market, but is anyone dreaming enough to think that once (if) Apple gets a large marketshare, it will just be the next Microsoft?

I mean, looking at all their marketing tactics and dirty moves... its fine now, because its mostly aimed at Microsoft, and its with a small market...but if Apple was to NOT change tactics once it reaches 30%+ marketshare? OUCH! Bundling, false advertising, FUD, price jacking, bullying their partners around, etc? That would be fairly bad.

Now to hope that the only reason they do that now is because they have no choice (have to sink to the competition's level), but I somehow have my doubts.

Re:Is this really surprising? (2, Insightful)

masdog (794316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856272)

Bundling, false advertising, FUD...


What? You think they don't do this already? Have you seen what in-house programs Apple includes with the Mac? Have you seen one of those "I'm a Mac" commercials lately? They're nothing but false advertising and FUD.

Re:Is this really surprising? (0, Offtopic)

masdog (794316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856360)

I know its bad form to do this, but I didn't read the whole post before I replied. Damn that lack of morning coffee.

Re:Is this really surprising? (5, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856280)

One key difference is that Apple and Google's products have always been best-of-breed, while Microsoft has always been the lowest-common-denominator. When you say "quality", Microsoft isn't the company that jumps to mind. (Perhaps "cheap", but now Linux is eating them from below on that, so I'm not exactly sure what Microsoft's "core" is anymore.)

Thus the entire premise of the article is a bit of a straw-man: Apple's corporate goals don't appear to include even TRYING to gain a majority of the market share. Their phone only competes in the "smart" market which is 1% of the total market; their computers have no low-end offerings whatsoever; the iPods, despite having some of the best margins in the industry, are consistently undercut on price-per-feature.

Re:Is this really surprising? (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856618)

One key difference is that Apple and Google's products have always been best-of-breed, while Microsoft has always been the lowest-common-denominator.
That's just not true. I hate Microsoft as much as the next Linux-using geek, but ... Excel was always well ahead of its closest competitors. So far ahead that for a few years it was considered by many to be one of the best reasons to get a Mac, ironically enough. Microsoft's development tools were considered second to none in the DOS days and are still the easily amongst the best tools to use on Windows -- so much so that other, competing development tools have done a great job of imitating them (think Eclipse).

Apple's corporate goals don't appear to include even TRYING to gain a majority of the market share.
Sure they are. And they might just succeed, as long as Microsoft keeps making the same stupid mistakes.

Their phone only competes in the "smart" market which is 1% of the total market; their computers have no low-end offerings whatsoever; the iPods, despite having some of the best margins in the industry, are consistently undercut on price-per-feature.
Their phone seeks to pull cell phone users from the 'standard' cellphone market into the smart phone fold by being the easiest to use; Apple has the iMac and the Mac Mini, both of which are low-end offerings; iPods might be consistently undercut on price-per-feature, but they still sell more than all of their closest competitors.

800 MHz G3 iBook (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856118)

I owned the white, 12-inch 800 MHz G3 iBook. I hate them now.

Honestly, Apple! Soddering the GPU with a ball grid array upside-down? Yeah, thanks for that!

Re:800 MHz G3 iBook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856222)

On the plus side, they can at least spell solder.

Re:800 MHz G3 iBook (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856534)

It not his fault, elsewhere in the world they pronounce it as solder. In the US it is pronounced as sodder for some reason I can't fathom. Sort of like herb vs erb. And while they pronounce Grand Prix with the French pronunciation, they screw up coupe and mangle it with a hard "p" and drop the "e".

Love Bill Gates? (2, Funny)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856120)

Nah, I didn't like him in the 80's either. DOS was crap. Flight Simulator was a pain to copy.

Yeah, but they're just companies (5, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856122)

They're not religions, political parties, families, etc. They're businesses.

They don't need an adoring cult around them. They need to provide what the market demands. If people want to impute a personality or culture to a company, that's fine as far as that goes. But it's still pretty much bullshit.

New Clothes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856476)

They don't need an adoring cult around them. They need to provide what the market demands. If people want to impute a personality or culture to a company, that's fine as far as that goes. But it's still pretty much bullshit.

How dare you! I am Apple and Apple is me! Without the existence of Apple, I wouldn't exist! I would have to use Windows and I wouldn't be cool anymore: I'd be like everyone else. Besides, Windows does not go with my black wardrobe! Do you honestly expect me to buy new clothes? Even if I did, buying all black makes life sooo much easier and it's slimming. I'd to go on a diet if Apple went away.

I'm also an artist. I cannot create without my black outfits and Apple computers. Geeze!

And perhaps Microsoft will be loved again (3, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856130)

Just look at IBM. People seem to love them now. Of course, then there're the likes of, say, Standard Oil/ExxonMobil/Chevron who have always been hated...

Re:And perhaps Microsoft will be loved again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856398)

Only because they're the 800lb gorilla that sided with Linux against SCO. People aren't buying IBM gear like Apple's toys.

Pretty simple, really (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856418)

It's pretty simple, really. As I keep reminding people:

- when companies are at the top of their niche, and have their nice walled garden and penned sheep to shear at will, they want to keep their garden walled and their sheep penned. Then they want proprietary protocols, incompatible tweaks to the "standard", and they want those sheep scared shitless of even thinking about the world outside their pen. They want you to think "oh shit, if we switch from IBM mainframes to cheap Unix workstations, we'll have to retrain everyone, rewrite our software, rip out and change the whole infrastructure, etc. Naah, let's buy another workstation, it's cheaper." In fact, they don't even want you doing that kind of maths, they want you scared of what might pop up later that you haven't foreseen, and unsure if you even know the right sum it will cost you, and whether you'll get ass raped without lubricant by your clients _and_ accounting department if you changed anything.

The term FUD, now almost synonimous with MS tactics, was coined about IBM tactics. That's not even the tip of the iceberg of FUD there, but the very phrase "nobody got fired for buying IBM" carried the thinly veiled threat that you _might_ lose your job if you go with something else.

- when they're at the bottom and scraping a living off the niches outside the pens, then they want access to those rich guys gardens and sheeps. Then they start screaming that such fences and walls are an abhomination and evil. Then they want open protocols, and ISO standards, and generally everything that will make it easy for them to get to those penned sheep.

And a company's attitude can change at the drop of a hat, if their position on the food chain changes enough. IBM was the big bad monopolist, as long as it was the king of the hill. IBM became the champion of open source and open standards when it got enough of their lunch money stolen by the likes of MS.

And occasionally you even get to see the schizophrenic fits of a company that just slowly slides somewhere around the middle point. So they're starting to covet the neighbour's penned sheep, but aren't quite ready to free their own penned sheep too. Sun was for a couple of years at that point, but now it seems to have mostly resigned to being in the latter camp.

So what I'm saying is that, yes, things can change with MS too. If one day it finds itself at the bottom of the food chain, then MS _will_ become the champion of open standards. And then a bunch of nerds will love them.

Re:And perhaps Microsoft will be loved again (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856500)

IBM is not "loved" it's respected. Even when they were "hated", they were respected.

IBM like Apple and Google has always been about "making good stuff". The PC was an anomaly.

Microsoft never had that. When/if Apple and Google are generally hated, they will still probably have that.

It's the classic GM vs Honda situation.

Why we love them. (2, Insightful)

kabz (770151) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856136)

People love companies that give them what they want. Simple as that.

Back in the 90's, MS gave us great development tools, opportunity, a series of great Office suites and other excellent software.

Sadly however, software seemed to stagnate somewhat, and Microsoft have become increasingly dependent on their core set of products / cash cows, of Office and Windows.

In contrast, Apple in the 90's had a cruddy product line, stagnating software, and people were migrating away from Mac OS in droves, so the shiny new Windows 95.

However, now, the boot is on the other foot,as Apple is giving people what they want in both software and hardware terms. iPods, great Macs (thanks to Intel, and great industrial design), and great software.

Re:Why we love them. (4, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856316)

A few hundred thousand BSOD's dissagree with your idea about microsoft giving excellent software, especially in the 90's. Though I won't deny that I still fire up visual studio 6 just because it kicks major ass. Some of their software was amazing, but for the most part it was absolute shite compared to the *NIX offerings that were out there stability and security wise. Microsoft just had better marketing, and before linux and BSD really became more well known outside the dedicated CS scene, it had the price tag.

Re:Why we love them. (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856560)

Geeks never bought into the Microsoft hype as much. When there were multiple
competiting offerings to choose from, the Microsoft one was quite often the
one considered least sophisticated. This even applies to visual studio.

Skully (2, Insightful)

number6x (626555) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856614)

Many Apple fans hated Apple under Skully's leadership.

He killed their most profitable platform the (Apple II) and almost destroyed their second most profitable platform (the Mac) with crap like the Performa boxes.

Those Performas made Packard Bell PC's look good!

Hate Apple? Been there, done that.

Power Leads to Corruption (1, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856146)

Don Reisinger muses on the fickleness of consumer loves and hates.
I would view it more as power inevitably leads to corruption. And the real kicker is that no matter how good you try to be, there is always some aspect of your power that is corrupt to some extent.

No one can be president or leader of a nation and be corruption free. An easy target is Bush. His religion encourages him to turn the other cheek but that is not what happened after 9/11. His religion encourages him to love his neighbor and to treat him as he would want to be treated. Yet a fence between his country and Mexico says otherwise. The examples in this case are endless.

The same goes for "large company A." Once A gets large enough, it's not too difficult to start to find evil creeping in. Googles advertisement abilities already upset/disgust me. My difficulty in affording Apple products make me think they are discriminating against the poor. The list goes on.

I don't know if this is so much about the consumer as it is about power--the more you have, the more corrupt you are.

wrong assumption (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856148)

Err, no?

Quite a lot of people never liked Bill Gates. Not his person, not his business ethics and not the software he created. There's enough stuff on the Internet about his early disagreements with Free Software advocates, for example.

And far from the article, like it or not, Microsoft and especially Gates are still hailed as the best and greatest in a lot of trade magazines and computer magazines for the non-techies. Despite the crashes and bugs and problems, a lot of "regular" people believe that they invented "the cumputa".

Re:wrong assumption (2, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856304)

Despite the crashes and bugs and problems, a lot of "regular" people believe that they invented "the cumputa".

Surely they "invented" vendor lock-in with Windows.

However, Linux was too geeky way back when, so a non-starter. OS/2 would have been nice, but IBM messed up the install routine (why did it flash up saying my CD-ROM drive was not recognised - how did it read the file from the CD to write that on screen message then???), and BeOS 5 was really good but by then Windows was too dominant. Apple was seen as a niche as it sold on specific hardware and at premium prices, so not many touched it.

I think many people don't begrudge success, but it's HOW Microsoft managed to get it is what gets at people.

AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS (4, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856578)

By William Henry Gates III

To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.

What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.

Bill Gates

General Partner, Micro-Soft

Manufacturing Consent (2, Funny)

stoicio (710327) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856158)

It's always interesting when a piece like this comes out.

"Sure you hate Microsoft now. You didn't used to.
Why don't you crazy kids patch things up and get back together?"

Like they think I'm going to rush out and buy Vista
for nostalgic love reasons.

Re:Manufacturing Consent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856312)

I thought the worst part was "Don Reisinger muses on the fickleness of consumer loves and hates." which makes it sound as if it's unpredictable and irrational (though english is my third language and I might be misinterpreting it, in that case just tell me to piss off :) It's the same kind of attitude you get from people saying stuff like "oh you're just a microsoft hater". Sure but it's not without reason, it's been built up over the years by reading about the shit they're doing, like the stuff mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft [wikipedia.org] /D.A.

It's karma burn time... (1)

TheGreatOrangePeel (618581) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856160)

Uhm. No duh.

...but for now, Google is someone to work for, and iPod is something to scoff at (and then buy) and a Eee is the mobility lappy to get instead of the Air. Basically I'm saying we've a bit to go before we hate either company. For the relitivly short time that I've paid attention, I think we'll see a CEO change in these companies who will make policy that will drive us to hate them.

I'm already there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856164)

Shoo all you Johnny-latecomers! I hated them before it was the cool thing to do so.

When was Bill Gates loved? (1)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856170)

I've been around long enough to remember him saying 'We believe OS/2 will be the platform for the '90s" Yet I don't ever remember people liking him or MS the way they like Apple and Google.

Re:When was Bill Gates loved? (1)

jejones (115979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856344)

I don't remember Gates ever being loved, either... Microsoft started out as the authors of what Kemeny and Kurtz referred to as "gutter BASIC", then went on to be a source of so-so compilers. I still recall a letter published in BYTE magazine from someone who tried repeatedly to get MS to correct an error in FORMAT handling in their FORTRAN compiler (for the Z-80, I think), and after several releases went by, finally got a letter from Microsoft saying that they had no intention of ever fixing the bug.

Re:When was Bill Gates loved? (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856606)

I received a similar response from Microsoft when I reported some really gross bugs in FORTRAN-80. They just didn't give a shit. They told me that their programmers had more important things to do, fixing bugs wasn't profitable for them.

must be a slow newsday (0, Troll)

methuselah (31331) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856172)

this looks like troll food to me...

I already hate apple (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856180)

The only reason they're not in the same boat as Microsoft is because they're "cool". Their software is bloated and forces you to install items you don't want (Quicktime and iTunes) and now their hardware is really no different than a PC. I'll admit their iPod is a great piece of work however.

I don't get it. (5, Insightful)

Armakuni (1091299) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856220)

"Trust me, the future of Apple and Google may look bright from an economic standpoint, but these companies will be hated one day too. Sad, but true."

Why is this sad? Surely being suspicious of powerful entities is one of the better human qualities.

Why so pessimistic and Fallacious Logic ? (1)

posys (1120031) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856224)

Why so pessimistic and Fallacious Logic ?

Here to optimism : http://roboeco.com/ssep [roboeco.com]

We'll See (4, Interesting)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856226)

"but these companies will be hated one day too."

*sigh*
I have this conversation regularly at work. Whenever I express my distrust of Microsoft inevitably someone will start babbling about how I will hate some other random company in ten years. I can't help but think that these are all just Microsoft apologists.

It isn't the age or size of a company that makes me hate them personally- it's their behavior.

So far Google has never done anything as a company that I think is evil (yes even the China filtering) and all their products have been delightful to use. Given their past history I see no reason to assume that they will suddenly and magically become irresponsible. I also don't see my loyalty to them to be a function of any PR department. As soon as they modify the IMAP spec to make it so only their own email client can connect, or sell my personal information, then I will hate them.

The difference is that I can't imagine Google doing that. I would practically expect it of some companies like MS or Sony who have a long history of such behavior.

Incidentally- I have no opinion about Apple as a corporation.

Sorry, but I never "loved" MS (or the others) (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856234)

I always accepted Microsoft because early on they had the appearance of being the only option. They release Windows 3.x when there wasn't anything else really like it available for PC's at the time. I never thought their software was spectacular or even innovative. I'd already seen X11 on Solaris, etc. but at that point X11 wasn't an option on PC architecture. Windows was the only alternative. I accepted Word, Excel, etc. because they were by the same company and easy to get a copy of. Hell, I was even a professional Windows software developer for 10+ years but practically from day one I felt their software was bloated and unwieldy.

I think Google has done some very impressive stuff and I do think they've been very innovative. Apps like Google Earth, Google Book Search, etc. have a lot of originality & creativity in them. However I still tend to be a bit wary of them given their apparent desire to index virtually every bit of digital data ever generated. They may claim that they want to "do no evil" but a lot of evil can potentially arise from the ease at which they make all this data available.

Apple has done some innovative stuff like the iPod, iPhone, etc. but I also question their secretive behaviors. I understand their desire to control user experience by tightly controlling both hardware and software development but unless they are extremely careful that can be seen as monopolistic behavior. They're walking a very thin line, and although I use and own Macs & other Apple products I still question how they'll handle their unique position.

we already do! (1)

Lxy (80823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856244)

OK, maybe not hate, but I fail to see the excitement around the Apple product line. "ooooohhhh shiny" seems to replace desire for features and functionality.

Google, yeah, they make great stuff. I don't use them because of marketing, I use them because they WORK. I use Google search because I haven't found a consistently better search engine. I use Gmail because it works, and I'm lazy. Google Earth is, at this time, a unique product, and I have relatively few issues with it. And it helps that these services are all free.

Will I some day hate Google? Oh, probably. I used to cling to Altavista until they went south. Will soemthing better come along? Yes. Is it here yet? I don't think so. Ask.com makes a decent search engine, as does ChaCha. I have yet to see consistency in quality search results, so I don't use them.

I use what I like. Today I like Google. Today I also like Lenovo for my computing needs, Sandisk for my music, and LG for my phone. Tomorrow that may change. Such is the world of competition.

going backwards? (1)

Tim4444 (1122173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856256)

Apple has already been a hated company. Remember the iMac? Actually I know a lot of people who still hate Apple because their products are expensive, because of restrictions with iPods / iTunes, etc. There's no trend here. Consumers like companies that provide a good product at a fair price and they despise monopolies that abuse their position. The fickle consumer opinion sways accordingly.

Hey Google and Apple fanboys (0, Troll)

j_166 (1178463) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856258)

If you love Google and Apple so much, why don't you marry them? Afraid your kids will be funny looking?

Re:Hey Google and Apple fanboys (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856544)

Procreating with the thousands and thousands upon employees of Google and Apple?
I think they're afraid of something entirely different.

The day google will be hated (2, Insightful)

OrochimaruVoldemort (1248060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856260)

is the day they decide to overprice their products and make them "for business". The reason microsoft is hated is because they are business for business, not business for consumer. If google manages to dominate the market (mainly the online part), the seeds of corruption will have been sowed.

I'm starting to fear Google already (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856268)

Their "don't be evil" policy is admirable, but "evil" is subjective. Google really don't seem to be quite in step with most geeks I know when it comes to data protection and privacy.

It was the bomb that made me hate Apple (1)

georgeha (43752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856288)

It must have been back in 1992, I had a Mac that crashed with a bomb icon. No codes, no error messages, just a bomb icon. Gee, thanks, that really helps me fix it.

Compared to Windows 3.11 where you would get a string you could search USENET for, and maybe a hint of the bad program, a bomb is just useless cutesy shit.

Innovation (2, Insightful)

heffrey (229704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856294)

I really don't understand why people think that Apple are innovative. Would someone like to highlight which products are truly original Apple innovations?

I Already Hate Apple (1)

hielscher (1010837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856308)

I already hate apple, a lot. But then I live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and attend NYU, so the sea of tight-jeans-wearing hipsters who think it's somehow artistically relevant to be Apple fanboys gets overwhelming fast. It was actually summed up especially well already: the biggest problem with macs is the douche factor [maximonline.com] .

have to exploit to survive (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856314)

When you're a small company it's easy to grow at 20% a year - all you need is one extra customer and you've hit your targets.

When you get to billion$$ comglomerate size, it's more difficult. Your shareholders still expect the same record of growth that they saw when the company was younger, smaller and more idealistic. They put pressure on the board for more growth, bigger yields, higher share prices, better dividends.

As a CEO, if you can't oblige the "money or nothing" shareholders, they'll just dump you and find someone else who can/will.

To keep your job, out go the high moral standards, say goodbye to the corporate ethics and adios to the founding principles - all of which are now merely expensive luxuries than your organisation can no longer afford, in it's quest for double-digit year-on-year growth.

If you, as CEO, don't realise that customer loyalty and fanboy-infatuation aren't things that can be traded, don't worry - someone else (why do we emply marketing consultants?) will whisper it in your ear. Up go the share prices again and your bonus is delivered by the very same guy who unburdens you from your soul.

While it's possible to make a million from hard work - without exploiting other poeple, it's not possible to make a billion the same way.

The fate of sucess (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856318)

Is that the normal fate of a sucessful company. The love them when they are growing. Then they reach market saturation then they get booring, so they try some things to get more revenue then they get hated. After some good wallups the company goes back to what they are good at and they are liked again.

The problem with Microsoft over staturated the market and it still is. Windows should have 40% Market Share, OS X 25%, Linux 15%, 10% Unix and 10% Others.

No. (5, Insightful)

stinky wizzleteats (552063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856328)

You must not remember the days when everybody loved that scrappy upstate Bill Gates.

That is because there were no such days. From the very beginning, having stolen CP/M and computer time at a university to get their business running, Microsoft has always been regarded as a band of criminals largely devoid of real know-how. The fact that Google and Apple are not targets of widespread hatred in the tech community is evidence that there is more to the anti-Microsoft sentiment than simply rooting for the underdog.

Microsoft hasn't mattered in 10 years. Google is on top of the tech game now and everyone knows it. Apple is expensive and pretentious, but remains, for the most part, respected. The best Microsoft can hope for with regard to public sentiment is to transition from outright, boiling hatred to pity. If anti-Microsoft sentiment were the fickle leftist hatred of success that it is cast to be, then why would we also hate SCO, which is anything but successful?

The hatred of Microsoft is well earned, and its reasons go back to the very beginning of the company. If the SCO experience is any indication, it will long outlast the company's success.

clueless (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856338)

This all sounds like wishful thinking on Don Reisinger's part.

Among people I know, Microsoft has been despised since the early '80s -- mostly because they've been turning out crap software since the early '80s, but increasingly (in the last couple of decades) because of their complete lack of ethics and contempt for their users.

It's likely that the Google lovefest will dim somewhat in the future, but there are some notable differences: in particular, Bill Gates has always been essentially amoral in his approach, whereas the Google founders have at least attempted to set a different tone. I known cynics scoff at that sort of thing, but it makes a difference.

Anti Trust (1)

sonicimpulse (807688) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856352)

The movie anti trust reminded me so much of Microsoft. Even the seats in the office where puzzle pieces of microsofts logo. The whole company was based off of other peoples code. Thats why we all hate microsoft. Now they want to buy yahoo.com. They are not an innovative company. They make there fortunes and losses off of other peoples work. The other thing that is funny is we all look at apples iPod. Most people think there the first ones to come out with MP3 players. Don't forget about Creative hard disk MP3 players back in the day. They just new how to market the whole project much better.

They already do (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856354)

I would say that some people already do hate Google and Apple, but in a different way from why people hate MS. People hate MS because of their past actions and monopolistic practices, and not to mention any shoddy operating systems they released recently. If people hate Google and Apple it's because of envy of the creativity and laxity inside the company, and that they sold out and joined the ranks of the higher-ups such as MS. I know the part about the online advertising, but I hardly notice that since I have my adblock with an ad.doubleclick/* filter.
The difference with Google in my opinion is that Google listens more to what end users want to use online, rather than telling them what they will use (toss some comments my way if they don't). And to my knowledge Google doesn't actually sell a tangible product.

/2 cents

Huh? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856356)

You must not remember the days when everybody loved that scrappy upstate Bill Gates.

Ummm ... having personally disliked Microsoft since the mid 80's, and really hated it since by about '90 or so, I don't think that's nearly as true as the poster thinks.

Anyone in the first wave of Linux users was migrating away from the steaming pile of sh*t that was Windows 3.11 (and below) and finally getting some use out of their computers

The media loved Bill Gates, but people in the industry were developing a hugely strong dislike for him long ago. He was just the poster child for a long time.

Might I eventually be forced to reconcile an evil Google or Apple? Probably. Do they have a long way to go before they're even in the same league of virtiol that Microsoft evokes? Ubetcherass.

Cheers

MS hate isn't that widespread.. (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856358)

Outside of the linux/slashdot/open source community and Sony/Nintendo/Apple fanboys, there really isn't that much MS hate going around out there. Despite the RROD fiasco, I think MS bought themselves a lot of "goodwill" from the gaming crowd with the release of the Xbox and Xbox 360.

I hate apple's tactics already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856368)

They do all kinds of questionable stuff, the latest being that quicktime update tries to install Safari to windows machines of unwary users (I just noticed the update name was "Safari" as I was about to click "OK" on the update and didn't update. removed quicktime from my computer for that). I really, really, really wouldn't trust Apple even a little.

But know what? I still support it. Why? I don't like it at all BUT having two evil companies at 50% share is always better than having one at 95% share. Anything that divides the monopoly of one allmighty company to several less powerful ones makes it easier for the better ones to rise to the surface.

Besides, I kinda like the Apple-logo. :)

ps.

From the point of view of someone who works in internet marketing and search engine optimization for living and thus have slightly better insight into search engines than many, I would very much love to see Yahoo gaining a bit on Google there. I like the results more but also, currently Google makes the rules alone, for example that manually appliable +20 filter that moves site 2 pages further in results can suddenly and alone completely ruin some e-businesses here where google has 93% share... Seen that happen. (For the record, Microsoft's search engine still sucks. Who gets to the top of results is pretty much decided by who wants to google the most link directories and spam their links there... Thank god I don't need to care about it's 1.7% when I work.)

All about competition (4, Insightful)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856410)

Utter nonsense. Apart from the obvious massive differences in approach to quality between MS and Apple, it's actually primarily about competition; companies generally stay in line when there are true competitive pressures. If the industry manages to become competitive (we're not there yet but it's certainly improved over five years ago) then there'll be fewer reasons to 'hate' any particular company, market forces will help make sure they behave. The current trend towards improved support for Web standards is just one example. If we end up with say 15% Linux, 30% Apple, 30% MS, 10% Androi, 15% 'other', that would be a good balance - things like interoparability will be literally forced by the market, and they'll also be forced to actually improve and debloat their respective products.

We don't hate MS "because they're big", that's what marketers want you to think. We hate them because of their unethical abuse of their dominant market position to push inferior products which we've had to suffer with for years.

The day they change their attitude and start producing quality standards-based products, is the day we start liking them, no matter their size - it's really as simple as that.

I hate Apple since 1983 but still appreciate Googl (2, Insightful)

Framboise (521772) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856412)

It is not success that push people like me to hate a company, it's factual commercial decisions and practices. For example I have been an Apple fan because of its open hardware Apple ][. The Mac was a big disapointment in this regard so I stopped to purchased Apple computers and to admire Apple. I switched to PC's loaded first with the cheap Microsoft Dos and W95 until I saw that Linux was providing better what I was expecting from a computer. Up to now Google is behaving fine in the sense that Google services are very useful and the privacy concerns are still moderate. Obviously if Google would become unbearable I would also hate it.

Apple? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856464)

Nowadays Apple does about as much evil stuff as Microsoft. They just have less power, so the amount of evil they can do is more limited.

Google? As long as there isn't a better search engine I'll use Google. I used Infoseek when it came out, then Altavista, then Altavista/Hotbot, then Google. I don't trust Google in terms of security - they have not had a good track record with that.

As for Microsoft - I don't recall ever liking them, though the first programming language I learnt was Applesoft Basic.

Microsoft is Uniquely Evil (1)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856520)

The problem with this kind of statement is that Microsoft is a unique sort of evil among tech companies. I'm not saying another tech company can't be evil, or even equally as evil as Microsoft. Heck, I'll even say a company can be much worse than Microsoft, Microsoft has done a lot of good for the computer industry. I mean, they made an OS that ran on generic commodity hardware while Apple was (and still is) wedded to vendor lock in, "our OS is only sold to run on our hardware." I personally have always been impressed by Direct X, and the fact that I can usually figure out a way to get old... I mean really old... games or other programs to work on recent copies of Microsoft's OS.

However, Microsoft has always come across as a two-dimensional, mustache twirling villain if you are in the tech industry and aware of them as more than background noise. (Background noise is what they are to most non-tech inclined users, although this might be changing.) It's not that they are involved in anti-competitive practices, its that they openly revel in this. They are the guys who will tie you to the railroad tracks cackling maniacally, who'll say, "Even if they pay me the money, I'm still going to flood every city on earth with molten hot magma."

If another company is flooding your city with magma or tieing you to the railroad tracks, they just won't be as openly gleeful about it.

Apple - love them and hate them both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22856524)

Steve Jobs is a genius, I love apple products, but here are my experiences. I am a linux nerd sysadmin. I bought an iMac when they came out, as a cute toy and to run OSX for fun. One day during the update from Apple (automatic updates) the machine crashed and upon rebooting it said KERNEL PANIC. I had to wipe my hard drive reload my os. when i connected my 30G ipod, the newly reloaded iMac DELETED all my music. i sold it, took the money and went and bought an AMD64 with XP, reformatted my iPod to FAT.....

on the iPod, i noticed the sound wasn't as good as the mp3s played through my computer, once I loaded RockBox on iPod the sound was better than APPLE's firmware!!! WTF!!!???

I found the Cowon D2 which has a *separate* EQ chip (not done in software like iPod) and BBE sonic maximizer and full touchscreen + custom EQ for $190. iPod doesn't even have custom EQ and their EQ settings are horrible.

So apple does some stuff right and gets other stuff wrong. if you are rich go with apple. if you are poor/middle class go linux and customize your system to look cool.

Maybe hate is the problem then? (5, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856574)

How about if you guys just give up on the groupthink instead?

The socially-reinforced need to pick out people or organizations to hate seems like something you might want to grow out of at some point.

If Apple or Google actually send assassins to kill your wife and children, go ahead and hate them. If some opinionated Internet comment-posters and the folks you chit-chat with at the office decide to hate Apple and Google, why not just encourage them to worry about reality, live their own lives, and stop the schoolgirl clique nonsense?

Don't you have anything better to do? Can't you find something before the "hate-Google" and "hate-Apple" memes get started? You have time. Now is your chance.

Remind me, please (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22856632)

Who, exactly, is Don Reisinger? And more importantly, why should I care about his opinion one way or the other?

Oh, wait - his name sounds like he might've been one of the bad guys back in the old black and white Zorro TV series - is that it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?