The whole thing was not a bad idea for tablets. And having tablet-centric touch UI side by side with desktop UI makes sense for all those convertibles.

The problem was that Metro was shoved onto desktop/mouse users. Now that it's being fixed, this makes sense. What makes even more sense is Metro apps being able to run in regular floating, resizable windows - this means that you can write an app with a single codebase that runs on any Windows device in any form factor, including ARM varieties and phones (and yes, it is possible to dynamically adapt UI to the platform). Which means that people will now actually write those apps, because they will have the entire market of existing Windows desktop users to target.

Well, I'm a full-time salaried employee, not a contractor, and so are all the other guys that I know who got hired on H1B. I'm Russian, not Indian, but I know a few H1Bs from India, too, and it's the same story for them. But this is all anecdotal, of course.

Regarding the overall numbers, here is something from 2012. It's curious that neither Google nor Facebook nor MS are in the top 10. Looking at the table further, I see these hire counts:

MS - 2700
Amazon - 2200
Apple - 1200
Intel - 800
Google - 600

Not too shabby, but smaller than I expected, to be honest. However, where I was wrong is the total scale of operation. The top 3 - which all seem to be "contractor outsource" sweatshops just as you've described - between themselves, account for almost 70k hires. I don't recognize other names in top 10, but I assume that at least some of them are similar, especially all the companies with "consulting" in their names.

So yes, your "under 5%" is estimate is quite accurate. I apologize.

As a side note, Facebook is not on that list at all, so I assume that they do all of their H1B hiring through other companies. Now this doesn't necessarily translate to abuse, but when others don't do this kind of thing, it makes one wonder...

I know full well about these - I even mentioned Tata in my reply! But somehow people don't usually talk about Tata. They talk about Facebook, Google, Microsoft etc - precisely the places where it doesn't happen.

I also seriously doubt that I'm in 1-5%. Between all of the companies I've listed above, I'm sure there's at least 10k of H1Bs working in them, probably more.

Threats or abuse do happen (in places like Tata). And yes, green card is a carrot in practice, but here at least it's not used to negotiate a lower wage. That's as it should be.

Basically, like I said, I agree that 1) the way H1B program is set up is rife for abuse, 2) it actually is abused by some companies, and 3) it therefore needs to be replaced by something much different that does not allow for such abuse. The point that I'm trying to get across is that many H1Bs do not work for sweatshops or get paid low wages.

As an H1B, I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat, but it's simply not an available option. One can apply for a green card while on H1B (and I did), but this takes years. Then there's the diversity lottery (and I participate in that, too), but that one is, well, a lottery.

FWIW, and this is purely anecdotal, but every single H1B that I know, myself included, has applied for a green card as soon as they could. Granted, all of H1Bs that I know are in major tech companies like MS, Google and Amazon.

While H1B is a "non-immigrant visa" in theory, it's dual intent - meaning that you can apply for green card while on it (which is much easier when your employer sponsors you for that), and not get immediately booted out of the country. So for a lot of people, H1B is, indeed, their immigration track.

The fact that Tata is still issued any H1B quotas is, frankly, preposterous. They are the worst abusers by far, with a long track record of that.

As someone who is working on an H1B visa in Seattle, I didn't see anything like what you describe. I get paid as much as my American colleagues - more on average, in fact. My employer has sponsored my green card application, which I'm patiently waiting on (and why'd they do that if they just want an "indentured servant"?) No-one has ever directly threatened or even hinted at abusing their ability to complicate life for me as an H1B. I'm also not aware of anyone else being similarly abused.

Note, I'm not saying that I don't believe your story. I totally do, but the key part of it is:

So yes, if you worked for some place like Tata, my sincere condolences. But it's not like that for all of us.

I would also add that I do think that H1B is a deeply flawed program, and should be remade into something more sensible, and probably geared specifically towards fast(er)-track immigration rather than true temporary work (which is how most other countries handle this).

Sure, so why not ask the actual H1Bs?

I, for one, can tell you that, looking at GlassDoor, I earn more than the average in my area for my position, for 5 years now.

The irony is actually that the present H1B system results in more lock-in if people try to immigrate. Let me explain.

If I'm an H1B with no intent of obtaining green card / citizenship, then my only obstacle to switching employees is finding another company that is willing to sponsor my H1B application. And even if I get laid off, I have some time (IIRC, it was about a month - not exactly much, but there's some wiggle room here) to find a new employer. So I can shop around for better wages etc.

On the other hand, if I'm H1B, and the company that hired me sponsors my green card application (which is the usual skilled immigration track for US), then, should I switch my employees, my green card filing is no longer valid. Basically, I have to start from scratch with the new employer sponsoring it. Given that a green card application queue today is literally several years long, and you basically get pushed back to the end of the queue if you have to re-file, this can be a major setback - the later in the game it happens, the bigger it is.

Since you're naming names here, can you cite one concrete example of an "indentured servant" H1B in Facebook.

This gets repeated again and again, but I never see evidence presented for it. Anecdotally speaking, as an H1B in Microsoft, I know that I do not get paid any less than my American coworkers. I also know plenty more H1Bs both here and in other tech companies that regularly poach from MS (Amazon, Google, Facebook etc), and none of them get underpaid.

All the real-world horror stories that I do hear, are from Tata and other sweatshops like that. But while they do account for a lot of green cards, they do not represent the "vast majority" of them.

It's the other way around, actually. Historically speaking, for most of US history, immigration to it was free for all. No visas, and getting citizenship was pretty much automatic after residing in the country and paying taxes for some time (like 1-2 years).

It gradually evolved into the present system from there, and on most stages of that process it was driven by xenophobia. First they restricted Chinese immigration - you know, the "yellow peril" who are stealing good men's jobs. Then racism raised its ugly head up high, and for a while only people of "Caucasian" descent could get citizenship at all (there was one known case of an educated Indian guy who successfully argued in court that, because he belongs to brahmin caste, that makes him "Aryan", which is basically Caucasian - but a few years down the line that decision was reversed, and they actually stripped his citizenship).

I'm not saying that this is binary. I do think there is a difference between someone who's on a very visible and public crusade (like, say, Orson Scott Card), and a guy who is promoting some political position privately. This particular case, I believe, falls under the latter category - I'm not aware of Eich giving public speeches on this matter, or "wearing a cap" etc. He made a political donation, one among many thousands. The record of that donation was made public because the law required it, not because he wished to publicize it (IIRC, wasn't this even done by court order?).

Was it? I fail to see the connection - Eich did not publicly climb the soapbox and make ridiculous statements. He keeps his bigotry private.

He's not merely a member - he's the one in charge.