Microsoft IS EVIL

posted: 2003-06-19 15:05:20 perma-link, RSS comments feed

Any promise from Micrsoft is equivalent to being promised 40 acres and a mule.

Microsoft is evil. Fresh from their inconsequential loss to the DOJ, they are now taking on Google, Yahoo, etc. As you may or may not know, if you use their browser ( the one that after this version will be fully integrated with their OS ), any mis-typed url takes you to their own search technology, rather than a 404 or other error. They've been using this to gather stats on what people are looking for on the net, and have been using it drive traffic to their engine.

I've known about this problem for some time, but now it's an official business initiative, as reported on CNET..

To understand how evil this really is, consider these search results from it:
Search: [browser ]

"Browser" returns the following link:

Internet Explorer [microsoft.com] Website.

Search:: [mozilla ]

"Mozilla" returns the following link:

Internet Explorer [microsoft.com] Website.

Search:: [OpenOffice.Org ]

"OpenOffice.org" returns the following link:

Microsoft Office [microsoft.com] Website.

Search:: [quicktime]

"quicktime" returns the following link:

Microsoft Windows [microsoft.com] Website.

Search:: [Apple computer]

"Apple computer" returns the following link:

Microsoft Windows [microsoft.com] Website.

I can't wait til the day when I have to buy my food from Microsoft. Any promise from Micrsoft is equivalent to being promised 40 acres and a mule.

thynameishoopla said on 2003-08-04 17:14:43:
heh. the moment theyput the palladium project into full swing, my computer goes off the network. BTW, it pisses me off how,m on any other search page, you have to sift thru like 14 pages of adds before you get to anything good... it's fricken stupid. microsoft takes this to the extreme. it creates inferiour versions of products they have bought or stolen from others. it pisses me off. lots. THxnnxx

glenn1you0 said on 2003-07-23 03:48:53:
While I generally agree on both points, I don't agree in this instance. People don't always opt for better, they opt for more familiar. IE is now a better browser - but primarily because most pages are coded for it. Most pages are coded for it because 1) it came with windows, 2) it rendered invalid html, 3) windows developers take their lead from MS, not from standards bodies. That's why we have JScript and JavaScript, various versions of DOM, etc. On the second note, there is no reward for being successful, powerful and productive. Those are the rewards. And no one is debating that MS is not any of those. The issue in that debate is when is enough enough? Can one be too successful? Can a company amass too much power? I think so. And on the issue of presidents, Successful or not, we do remove our presidents specifically to prevent them from weilding too much power. Our ( presumptive ) country's goverment has been built from the beginning to limits its power.

Chaz said on 2003-07-19 14:30:46:
I firmly beleave that Microsoft would not skew the search results in the way you illustrated. Microsoft would understand that if they did skew the results the way you have stated, their search engine would not be used. People would move back to the search engines they remember. You said that Microsoft could make it so you couldn't use these search engines? There are so many search engines online that Microsoft couldn't eliminate all of them. Besides, even if they started restricting access to these pages, like a universal parental guardian, people would find a way to download different browsers. Humans have evolved far enough to realize when they aren't getting what they want, and when to change. It's like if you love to eat or drink something, and then one day you develop an allergy to it, you will learn to stop eating or drinking whatever it is. On a second note, since when is the reward for creating a sucessful, powerful, and productive product being destroyed? Microsoft has just had great management, and created really good things. Why should the government split them up. If this is the way our country works, then why aren't all the good presidents impeached and removed from office for winning a war, or getting the economy back on track?

jc said on 2003-06-23 13:24:05:
Sounds like they're breaking their own browser. What exactly does this subversion of search tactics gain them? It gains them a few eyes on their products. It gets them a few more hits. It probably increases sales. What does the use of Microsoft's software gain the end user? If their software is the most useful to that end user, they have done their customer a service. If not, they have hampered their customer. Common business sense tells you that you can only abuse your customers so much before they move on to the competition. IE6 is a pain, but they wont, and never will make it for the Macintosh. I'd still rather use it than Netscape. Opera is kind of nice, but many sites don't work with it. I love safari, but I can't pay some of my bills online with it, and it's layout metric is still screwy. This dictates that I use safari when I'm just surfing random sites, and use IE when I want to pay the bills. If microsoft breaks searching, I'll use a different browser/os for that. It's becoming more about the task than the platform. I guess what I'm trying to say in my rambling way is, fine, let them break the search function on their browser, I'll use something else when I wanna search and have a leg up on my competition.

glenn1you0 said on 2003-06-22 13:04:52:
It's true that I haven't studied Carnegie. I was basing my estimations of him a PBS timeline of his life that included: -------------------------------- 1887 Carnegie marries Louise Whitfield. Carnegie and Frick disagree over a striking union. Henry Clay Frick organizes a coalition of coke companies to resist striking labor, but Carnegie has a large enough share in Frick's company to force him to settle with the workers. The tension between the two men is resolved for the time being, but Carnegie and Frick will disagree on labor issues in the future. 1889 "Gospel of Wealth" published. Carnegie publishes "The Gospel of Wealth," arguing that the wealthy have a moral obligation to serve as stewards for society. By the next year, Carnegie's annual take-home pay is $25 million. 1892 The Homestead Strike occurs. A union contract at Homestead expires; on vacation in Europe, Carnegie directs Frick to handle the situation. The workers have been organizing a strike, and when they are locked out, the strike proceeds. Frick has prepared for a stand-off by hiring Pinkerton agents. The New York Times writes, "It is evident there is no `bluffing' at Homestead. The fight there is to be to the death." The Pinkertons arrive and shoot it out with workers for about twelve hours. Although the Pinkertons surrender, they are forced to pass through a crowd of hundreds of workers, who beat them mercilessly, severely injuring twenty of them. The state militia is sent in to reclaim the mill and strikebreakers are hired to re-open it. This incident marks the end of Carnegie's image as a friend of the worker. ----------------------------------- I asumed that if 1892 was the end of Carnegie the "friend of the worker", that prior to 1892 he was considered the workers' friend. I think we're arguing semantics though. Perhaps evil is the wrong term. He's not killing babies after all. But maybe captialism needs to be better defined. Are there no legal or ethical characteristics to capitalism? Should I re-title the entry to "Fresh off the DOJ conviction, wherin MS was found guilty of using its monopoly in the desktop market to impede business and innovation in other markets, MS has begun integrating its browser more fully with its operating system, subverting tcp/ip protocol, and buying up companies that produce OSS compatible products in order to cease their production" ? Especially, in the last case. It is now illegal to impliment that antivirus technology on Linux, unless you are Microsoft. We're dealing with a company that has over 40 billion in cash. They can buy anything they want. It's not competition - its competition suppression. As you mentioned, they are seen as an example of "incredibly effective capitalism". I'd say possibly too effective. Or is that possible? Are there any limits? I think competition is core to the concept of capitalism. If I were to start a company, selling a software product that could be seen competing with a microsoft package, you'd have to understand that I'm starting out competing against a company that has $40B it can throw at politicians, lawyers, SIG's, news outlets, etc before I can bat an eye. I'm competing against a company whose control of the desktop will ensure that the first search result users will see when searching for my product will be MS's own offering, and mine may not get listed at all. I think one of the differences here, is that software is my livelihood. To put things in perspective, I see many of MS's actions like you might see RIAA buying up all of the tickets to a Greatful Dead concert, and turning around and reselling them only to people who agree not to record anything, not share what they've heard with anyone, not to try performing those songs yourself, in whole or part, and agreeing that any recordings that you do have are merely licensed to you for your listening pleasure for a period of two years after which you'll have to renew your license to hear it again. Meanwhile, they've bought up all of the potential venues for performing, and are lobbying the goverment to make adhoc performances deemed illegal and dangerous.

Benz said on 2003-06-22 11:12:34:
I think I've already addressed the points you raise. I still believe people are smart enough to use products that work, and if this "evil" villain Microsoft is skewing search results, we're smart enough to use Google instead. But I don't think Microsoft is evil. Pol Pot was evil. Hitler was evil. Microsoft isn't evil. Unless you define incredibly effective capitalism as evil ... and there are those who do. I'm not one of them. You also need to read up on Carnegie. He was no friend of the worker. He was as reviled in his time as Gates is today. That's why I chose him for the comparison. I don't think he was evil. But he was a complex guy whose main goal was to build an industrial empire. And he crushed anything that got in his way. Just like Bill. And when he reached the top, he spent much of his fortune on phlanthropy. Just like Bill.

glenn1you0 said on 2003-06-22 09:45:24:
My point exactly. If you've only seen it on a few friends computers, then your impressions are likely to be based upon how similar it was to your Windows experiences. And if it is different, then it must be inferior? But how could this situation have been any different, when they spend the previous decade illegally preventing other os's from shipping with pc's? My point is, how did Google rise above HotBot, Yahoo, AltaVista, etc? As you implied, relevant search results. But what happens when windows starts giving you results before you go to another search engine? What if those results are relevant? How will you know when it is relevant? Already we can tell that they are playing with the results on some search terms, but not others? What hapens when they redirect all requests for google to their own servers? They can do that. Would the market just move to another OS? I don't think so. If you've used thier products to manage your data/content, then you've locked it up in formats they guard very carefully. And at this point, if you're running XP, it will shut itself down unless you renew your lease when it expires. Better/easier/cheaper are no longer the criteria used for making a selection. Most people are creatures of habbit. Better, easier and cheaper are now all expressed in terms of having to break a habbit. Is windows cheaper? No, unless you calculate in the sever mental anguish associated with learning some new icons. Is it easier? Not unless you calculate in the sever mental anguish associated with learning some new icons. Is it better? I'm not even sure what better means. I'm guessing it means generally not having to learn some new icons. And as far as the Carnegie comparison goes, that's a pretty loaded comparison in the other direction, dontcha think? Here we have a man that gave away over 90% of his fortune. A man who attempted to give the Philippines their freedom. A man who was seen not just just as a capitalist, but as a friend of the worker and proponent of democracy. A man who used his understanding in one field to innovatively enter another field, spawning new businesses left and right which were spun off to thrive independantly. Meanwhile, I don't see Gates as a friend of the worker. I don't think Gates sees anyone who hasn't paid the $895 for the development tools which further lock you into his platform as a friend. I don't think a proponent of Democracy would activley lobby to outlaw OSS. I don't see Gates making any attempt to ensure my freedoms. Gates has used his companies expertise in one area to supress innovation in other areas, spawning new businesses that must remain tightly integrated with the whole. When they aren't doing that, they are buying up IP as a way to suppress alternative platforms. ( For a recent example: http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141750 where Linux products are being pulled off the shelves because they impliment algorythms that Microsoft now claims to own. Quote from the article: "RAV was a very popular product and was definitely the cheapest solution for Linux because it was sold on a per-server rather than a per-user basis." MS is actively taking solutions away from the OSS community, and by the way, it won't be a per-server license for MS users, and you'll end up up paying for it anyway when LongHorn rolls out. How many household users do you have on your PC's? ) The only similarity I see is that they were the richest men in the world during their lives. I can only conclude that Carnegie was either a terrific man, capitolist, patriot, and proponent of freedom and democracy, or that charitable donations do, in fact, erase the wrongs.

Benz said on 2003-06-21 18:00:56:
I've tried and installed every Microsoft OS since Windows 3.1. Even installed that one on an emulator on a Macintosh. I've tried a few Linux systems on other people's computers. Not sure which versions. I wasn't impressed. I thought about installing Linux a few times just to get a better idea what it was all about. Then I got to the part about how to do it. It seemed like much more work than it was worth just to experiment with. I love Tivo. And it hides Linux from me completely. That's one of the reasons I love it. The Tivo hackers who start mucking around in the OS leave me completely cold. No time for that. I just want it to record my shows. I still believe Linux will never be accepted as a common operating system in and of itself. It's for geeks and people who want to build real products on top of it (like Tivo). As for Gates and charity, I raised that to show how silly it is to call Microsoft evil. Comparing Gates to Saddam is rhetorically ridiculous. Like the liberals who compare Bush to Hitler. And if Saddam had given $24 billion to charity instead of torturing his own countrymen, I suspect the world would have a different view of him. You can do better than this comparison, Glenbot. Try comparing Gates to another ruthless capitalist who was loved/hated. Maybe Carnegie. Oh, that's right. Carnegie's name lives on largely through his charity and foundations. Guess that won't work ... How do I feel if searching Bob Benz returns Microsoft Bob? Don't give a damn. Enough irrelevant results and I'll use a different search engine. That's my point about free markets and competition. If Gates and Microsoft really are doing something so "evil," people are smart enough to figure it out and move on to other products (I really do believe this.) And Gates and Microsoft are smart enough to walk the line between doing what's good for their business and doing what will keep the customer coming back for more. Don't get me wrong. I'm not nominating Microsoft/Gates for sainthood. But they're far from evil. And until something better/easier/cheaper comes along, I'll stick with Microsoft.

glenn1you0 said on 2003-06-21 16:54:36:
Yeah, but how many microsoft operating systems have you tried? How Many have you installed your self? Verses: How many Linux operating systems have you installed? How many have you installed your self? You seem pretty happy with your TiVo. What's the most recent version of windows you've tried versus the most recent version of Linux? How would you feel if searching for "Knoxville marketplace" returned MSNBC Market place? If searching for Bob Benz returned "Microsoft Bob" ? Competition is fine. OSS is all about competition - that's why there are soooo many window managers, editors, languages, etc. Free software can sometimes be difficult to manage, but who said freedom was effortless? The microsoft search engine doesn't compete - it subverts the nature of the competition. If you were judging search engines - you'd go by the nature of the results returned, no? This competes by hijacking typos and counting it as traffic. They'll use the millions of typos commited by people to show that their traffic is increasing and steal advertising dollars that would keep better search engines in business. They're not competing on functionality, they're grabbing the traffic before the competition begins. Re: Gates and charity -- What's the connection? Should we go easy on Saddam Hussein if he gave at the office? Re: is Google evil? -- Maybe. I never pledged allegiance to Google. I liked AltaVista, but Google's technology was better. They might be evil. I think monopolies are almost always inherently evil. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Benz said on 2003-06-21 10:36:05:
Sorry, but I'm tired of hearing people whine about how evil Microsoft is. They're not evil. They're just the ultimate capitalist machine. The wankers who are dragging them through court would be doing exactly what Microsoft does if they were as good at dominating markets. They're not. So they instigage anti-trust suits against Microsoft in a lame effort to compete. I used Netscape at one time. It sucked. I switched to Microsoft Explorer. I used Apple computers at one time. They failed to execute and Microsoft ate their lunch. Apple is now a niche product. And I use Windows. And Linux is a fucking joke. I don't want to work that hard to run an operating system. Sorry. Computers are supposed to work for me, not the other way around. I'll take Microsoft and its flaws any day. Until something cheaper and better comes along. That's how markets work ... and that's the beauty of capitalism and free markets. (Christ, I'm sounding like the "indefatigable" Howard Owens here.) BTW: Have you noticed how much money Bill Gates has funneled to charity? We're talking billions. Literally. Nothing evil about that ... BTW II: I'm not sure Google is going to turn out to be a benevolent, hippie-happy member of the "online community," either. If you think they aren't planning a little world domination of their own, check out the Trojan Horse they're offering newspapers these days ...

mock said on 2003-06-19 15:21:54:
you get a mule too??

HackerMoJo.com

Microsoft IS EVIL

Comments

Post a comment