Hi h4rr4r,
Ok! Now were getting somewhere. In your last post you didnt curse,
and you didnt say anything insulting. You are getting close to a lucid and
fact base conversation.
The idea that posting a positive comment about your employer makes someone a
"paid shill" is just goofy, it is nonsensical. If you really
believe
this, then there are large numbers of paid shills posting on Slasdhot and in
many other places. So, please be sure to
critisize them as equally as you have critisized me.
I think you dont understand the labor market. My explanation that
we pay people the same no matter if they are citizens or on a Vista doesnt prove
your point - not even a little. We dont complete for labor with just
ourselves,
but with many, many other companies - the demand for labor in our industry is
what sets labor prices - not what just what we pay. We compete for
top talent every day with Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, IBM, Oracle, and many
other companies (including small companies and startups). Its this market
that determines the cost of labor - how much we pay in salary and the overall
total rewards package.
The current labor market for they kind of people we hire - devleopers and
technical people in particular - is currently tilted in dramatic favor of the
candidates. Said more simply, the demand for top technical tallent
greatly outstrips the supply. Im sure you understand basic
economics to know what that means.
We simply cant pay less than the market rate or people that we wanted to
hire would simply go to other companies that offered better packages. We see
this all the time. For example, we recently lost a very good new-grad hire
to Google. They simply offered the candidate a higher sign on bonus.
He waned to buy a new car. He was very up front about it. He was
talking to Amazon as well. Unfortunately, he accepted Googles offer before we
had a chance to counter. He was new to this and didnt understand that he
had a good negotiating position and very likely could have gotten more out of
someone.
I dont like tax cheats either - they are breaking the law. I was
really clear that avoiding taxes legally is good, right, proper and noble. If you dont like people and companies that do that then you really dont like a very large
number of people and companies. Are you being hypocritical here? Have you ever taken a tax
deduction?
How about for mortgage interest? Or a home office?
If so, how is OK for you to do that, and cheating if others do it? How do
you judge a ligitmate tax reduction technique, or a bad one. Do you just
know it when you see it - which is subjective relativsim at its worst - or do
you have some more objetive criteria? You can
I can agree to disagree here - but as long as its legal, its not cheating. I argue that it would be good to make it much simpler, and that it would be good
for the country if some corporate and individual tax shelters were eliminated.
But again, if its legal, its not only OK, its good, right and proper.
I searched, but I dont think anybody ever fussed at us about doing anything
that could remotely be called bribing dell. Do note that we
have long had a marketing program where we give partners marketing dollars if
they meet a min-quality bar. You may be familiar with the Windows Logo
Program. If they meet our logo requirements, they get some marketing money.
This program changes a bit from release to rerelease. All OEMs are
equally eligible .
My apologies for missing your comment about "calling Linux a cancer". Ballmer was widely misquoted here. If you read the articles (here
is one), he was talking about the GPL - not Linux itself. Ive
personally heard Ballmer talk about this internally, and it is the license he
doesnt
like, not the things that use the license. Now, you may
believe
that is splitting hairs, and if you take umbrage to Ballmers opinion here, then
I suggest you have a thin skin and are more than a little hypocritical.
You personally called me an asshole. How does that compare to what
Ballmer said? Moreover, the vitriol from the
anti-Microsoft (particular on Slashdot) is way, way more acidic than
any of Ballmers statements. if you are going to hold Ballmer to task
for this statment then you must certainly resever equal disdain for lots of
posts and peole here on Slashdot. You can find my related views
here.
Yes - I should have been more clear in talking about monopolies.That
wasnt a very well written argument. Privatizing was a poor choice of words. I
should have said de-regulating. Its pretty common that when left to their
own devices, ulility companies will rise
prices unreasonably.
Note - you didnt mention if you approve of MLB or not...
Next, you said:
How the Xbox turned out? According to MS it still has not ever made
a dime. The 360 may one day pay back its own dev costs, but it will not pay for
the first one. This is a great example of MS using its monopoly earnings in
other markets to distort this market.
Im not sure where you are getting your XBOX numbers - do some research.
Go look at our 2010 financial statements - heck, just go look at many other posts
here on Slashdot. The XBOX business is gangbusters for us and my
understanding is that the XBOX business has had a positive (and good) ROI for
some time now. As I mentioned in another post - just XBOX live
alone is running at $1.2 billion dollars. Here are some links:
Note, I do believe that we lost money on the original XBOX. But
with the 360, the overall program has been quite successful and is a growing and
profitable business.
Lets talk about interoperability. Interoperability is a feature.
Its is not free. You are a developer - you know that. SharePoint (and many other things) are Microsoft products, they work best with
Microsoft products. Just like things that run on Linux work best with
Linux. This is by design. Often we design, implement our products to
interoperate well with non-Microsoft products. Sometimes we dont.
What I can tell you is interoperability is something that is customer driven -
when our customers needed it, we do it. Again, we do this often.
But, we dont spend money, time, effort and energy on interoperability just
because someone on Slashdot might be unhappy about it. It doesnt
take too much digging to find non-Microsoft stuff that doesnt interoperate with
our stuff. How bout authentication? To my knowledge - there is no
way for a Linux system to participate in a Windows domain security model (which is
quite good) despite all the publicly documented protocols to do so.
Note, Linux systems can login with Kerberos - which has been supported since
W2K, but that just authenticates users - it doesnt make a Linux system a full
participant in a Windows domain security system. Note, that our support for
Kerberos is great example of a feature specifically included for
interoperability. Note, i think this is just fine - but it is an
example of a lack of interoperability in Linux.
Im not sure what interoperability problems you are talking about with
SharePoint - but Ill take it on face value that there are some. Im
assuming you are unhappy that SharePoint doesnt work with one or more
non-Microsoft browsers. Note, I actually use FF at work and it seems
to work just fine with our internal SharePoint servers. In any case, these
are our products. We dont make anybody buy them. If you
dont like it, dont use them. Im sure you can find all kinds of
alternate products - right?
Im not familiar enough with how Excel works on the Mac. But, the MAC
version of office doesnt have 100% feature parity with the Windows version.
My understanding is that this is more due to the what Apple customers want, and
the costs of developing he product, than any strategic or tactical decision not
to support something. Like with any cross platform engineering
project - there are trade offs to be made. Very few things that are
truly cross platform have 100% feature parity (though Im sure some do).
This is especially true for big complex things like Office.
I now apologize if I havent addressed any of your comments. If I have
missed any, its not intentional - just let me know what Ive missed and Ill
comment as best I can.
My motives for many of the questions I ask you is to determine if the
dislike and criticism you have of Microsoft is primarily aimed at Microsoft, or if
you have an equal dislike for the other companies that do the same things. I read through as many of your Slashdot post as i could in about 45 minutes and
these seem to indicate a focus on Microsoft. If so, then that
is highly hypocritical. If you are going to be this
critical of Microsoft, then you should also be as critical of other companies
that share similar business practices.
Let me give you a good example: Google giving Android away for free. Many people consider this highly anti-competitive behavior.My
personal opinion is that this is simple corporate hard ball at its maximum.
Developing a good mobile operating system, shell and set of applications is
freakishly expensive. Apple, Nokia (with Symbian), and Microsoft
have
all invested tons and tons of money here. So has Google.
Googles revenue model isnt selling software. Their primary revenue
stream is advertising by a ratio of 26 to 1 (clearly shown in their
most recent financial
statement).Googles goal is to undercut their competition
with a free product then make revenues off of search and customer data from
Android based systems. They openly call this both offensive and defensive
(cite).
Forbes thinks this will be a $1B market soon - almost as big as our
SharePoint business which is well over $1B in annual revenue, and highly
profitable. Google confirm this themselves (cite). When launched in 2008, Google said they would not take a cut of any paid app
revenues (cite). This is a direct shot at Apples business. For paid apps, they take
30% from the developer and give it to the carriers (which I think is brilliant).
Google isnt doing this because they are good, or because they are
noble, or because they love open source, or because they want to do what is best
for customers. They are doing it for one reason: to make as much money as
they possibly can at the direct expense of their competitors. To do this,
they will leverage every possible advantage they can - including their dominant
market share in search, which some claim is a monopoly, (cite,
cite,
cite,
cite,
cite - I could go on and on here...). To be clear - I dont
agree with all monopoly claims against Google, or Apple, or Microsoft.
My personal opinion is that such claims are driven by competitors who simply
suck - they couldnt cut it. So they did the only thing they could
do - sue. Losers every one. It may be expensive, it may
take a while, but it is possible to successfully complete with Google, Apple and
Microsoft - on their home turf, in their strongest markets. Its just
really hard and doing so means making no-mistakes because the big guys will squash you
if you screw up. Bummer for the looser here - whoever it may be.
Lastly, I have some requests for you:
- Dont make stuff up. If you are going to be critical, make an effort get
your facts right. Bing and Google are very easy to use. If you
make stuff up you are simply lying - you are not merely being mistaken.
- Dont cuss and dont gratuitously insult people. It just makes your
posts vulgar, base and common. It sucks the legitimacy out of your
statements and arguments.
- If you are going to be critical of Microsoft, be sure to apply that
criticism equally to others where it applies. Doing otherwise is simply
petty and hypocritical.
Best Regards
-Foredecker
p.s. My appologies if there are spelling mistakes in this post. I
use a spell checker of course, but Im a terrible proof reader.