Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 794
You've got a great point about the artificial scarcity thing. I agree totally; if Microsoft gets their hats handed to them in several markets ( OS, Office Suite ) because of their methods, they by definition have only themselves to blame.
As for your point about ethics and illegality, that obviously gets a lot muddier a lot quicker. Which ethics? The ethics of the profession of Software Engineering, which I think would uphold your view about the quality (best possible product) motivation, or the ethics of business? I guess business ethics, because I don't think anyone would argyue that they believe Microsoft gives any of their developers a say in how they market their products.
Business ethics seems driven more by illegality and profit than actual moral considerations or goodwill toward humanity. A business cares about moral and ethical considerations to the extent they believe their target market cares about same. And, of course, what's legal, and, oh, a business' perception of their chances of getting caught, the cost of getting caught, etc... All the stuff that people think about as individuals when making decisions, only in a business, it gets done in meetings and conference calls. Yay!
It sounds like you expect businesses to behave like moral agents, possibly because they are composed of people who are moral agents. But holding individuals morally accountable for their actions in a company like Microsoft ignores the the effects of their corporate culture. Microsoft is a leviathan. It's a huge beast with an tiny brain that can't process all its sensory input; it mostly just thrashes about. Or, in social terms, it's developed a culture of its own that's strong enough to compete with culture at large in the level of influence it exercises over its employees.
That's a good idea: treat businesses like moral agents in their own right. One reason is because people do it implicitly anyway. Another is because it would be a good indicator of when a company is becoming too big to manage itself, or that its kool-aid is especially splurge-like.
When you work for a cereal company, and the internal bureacracy of your company is so overdeveloped that the most pressing question about, say, your company's new cereal, Anthrax-Os, is how to market it, maybe it's time for a reverse merger.
As for your point about ethics and illegality, that obviously gets a lot muddier a lot quicker. Which ethics? The ethics of the profession of Software Engineering, which I think would uphold your view about the quality (best possible product) motivation, or the ethics of business? I guess business ethics, because I don't think anyone would argyue that they believe Microsoft gives any of their developers a say in how they market their products.
Business ethics seems driven more by illegality and profit than actual moral considerations or goodwill toward humanity. A business cares about moral and ethical considerations to the extent they believe their target market cares about same. And, of course, what's legal, and, oh, a business' perception of their chances of getting caught, the cost of getting caught, etc... All the stuff that people think about as individuals when making decisions, only in a business, it gets done in meetings and conference calls. Yay!
It sounds like you expect businesses to behave like moral agents, possibly because they are composed of people who are moral agents. But holding individuals morally accountable for their actions in a company like Microsoft ignores the the effects of their corporate culture. Microsoft is a leviathan. It's a huge beast with an tiny brain that can't process all its sensory input; it mostly just thrashes about. Or, in social terms, it's developed a culture of its own that's strong enough to compete with culture at large in the level of influence it exercises over its employees.
That's a good idea: treat businesses like moral agents in their own right. One reason is because people do it implicitly anyway. Another is because it would be a good indicator of when a company is becoming too big to manage itself, or that its kool-aid is especially splurge-like.
When you work for a cereal company, and the internal bureacracy of your company is so overdeveloped that the most pressing question about, say, your company's new cereal, Anthrax-Os, is how to market it, maybe it's time for a reverse merger.
