Slashdot Mirror
Assessing Media Bias: Microsoft Vs. Everyone Else
snydeq writes "J. Peter Bruzzese questions whether Microsoft receives unfair criticism in the media, while Apple, Facebook, and Google seem to get away from missteps unscathed. 'I've noticed an unfair, ongoing trend: If Microsoft does something a little off, it gets bashed into the ground for it. But if Google, Facebook, or Apple (all three of which can be categorized, like Microsoft, as The Man in their own rights) missteps, it generally gets mild reprimands and even support from the media and those drinking the Kool-Aid.' Do you feel any inherent media bias in its coverage of the tech industry?"
towards Apple.
If Microsoft hadn't already alienated the world by trying to bully them, then I might care.
What you're describing is the difference between a giant, scary company with a good PR department, and one that has no idea how to sell their brand. I think it's that simple.
The predominant bias is to avoid details, backround information or anything that could consitute basis for an informed opinion based on presented "facts". While local media and stations may be biased toward one manufacturer or another, they are all biased against providing news in context.
Are we really entertaining the topic of Facebook getting a free pass on PR? They get slammed every time a privacy issue comes up;
Likewise Apple gets hammered every time there's an iphone glitch or IOS issue effecting battery life.
Google? You mean the near universal punching bag for reasons why "do no evil" cannot be their motto?
Microsoft has been left relatively alone while Google and Facebook and Apple have faced the most severe scrutiny of late. Also the fact that conversation about the patent wars is dominated by Florian Mueller and people quoting Florian Mueller has meant Microsoft has got off very lightly, even in its extremely dubious attempts to collect royalty for Android based on software patents, and attemps at bullying smaller companies like BArnes and Noble: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296
Or the fact that despite anti trust rulings, we still get Windows bundled with all non Apple laptops with no option to avoid paying for it, and IE is still bundled?
No, they still get off too lightly.
This reads just like one of their whiny op-eds about the liberal media only focusing on republicans (and of course they're all lies or exaggerations).
It is the circle of life.
Once upon a time, it was IBM who had every misstep reported as evil and Microsoft was the could-do-no-wrong company,.
Twenty years from now, No one will talk about Microsoft at all, though they will still be in business. Everyone will jump on the evil that Google does, and no matter what they do, OCP (or the current new kid on the block) will do no wrong.
vi +
I have my issues with Microsoft, and enough of them to preclude any possibility of me ever becoming a fanboy no matter how much I may like a certain number of their products, but I agree with the assessment in this article.
Apple gets a pass because they have better marketing than God, and, as a result, a more loyal religion. Facebook gets a pass because they are everybody's favorite virtual hangout spot. Google gets a pass because they've long been thought of as almost an interchangeable term with "the internet" and they're constant, but undeserved, refrain of "don't be evil". But Microsoft? They're like the tech world's Yankees. They've dominated for so long, and in many ways so unfairly (at least in the past), that it doesn't matter how good of a show they put on because everybody is just showing up to boo them.
I suppose every story needs a villain, though. IBM is too far removed from consumers' minds to fill that role, anymore. Perhaps it is the inevitable karma of their past monopolist actions catching up to them, but it certainly seems as though Microsoft have become the pariah at the party these days.
Exactly how far back does your memory go? For decades while Microsoft held power over all computers that mattered the press was overwhelming pro-M$. A big part of that was of course because they poured an enormous amount of money into the publishers' coffers. Even whole publishers owed their existence to M$ and never would be heard a discouraging word (ever heard of Ziff-Davis?). Then there was this little thing of being convicted of illegal antitrust market manipulation and a few folks woke up to the idea that it is possible that not everything M$ puts out smells all that sweet.
Slashdot finally got rid of the Borg Gates image after all and people who still type M$ are openly mocked.
1. Apple
2. Sony
3. Facebook
4. Microsoft (or as people say here hilariously: Micro$oft...get it? It's Microsoft with a dollar sign!)
5. President Obama
6. Geek Squad
7. Monster Cables
8. Me
9. You
10. Themselves
And they haven't really done anything that dispells that reputation. Their recent attempt at bullying with patents is a case in point.
But I still agree with the article. But that's because I don't think Apple or Google are appropriately taken to task for some things they do that are wrong. Particularly Apple.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It all depends on who you listen to and which negative coverage you 'notice'. Microsoft gets tons of praise and has an army of fanboys, just like Apple and Google and Facebook, each of which seems to feel that their brand is under constant attack while the 'others' get off easy.
I don't know if the media is biased against MS or not . I know I am.
sigo ergo sum
Yes, although the article sucks and isn't worth reading. Microsoft does get more than its share of bashing, but then Microsoft has been at the top of the game for a longer time than any of the other companies mentioned. Google and post-iPod Apple have been seen as the trendy upstarts among those only skin deep in the tech world (which seems to describe the tech reporters/editors for most news outlets), and haven't been subject to the same amount of abuse - though this is changing.
Of course, Microsoft generally deserves the bashing it gets, so the real problem is that the other companies aren't bashed enough, not that MS is bashed too much.
I guess not too many people are drinking that Kool-aid then. They're all ready to vote Reagan's corpse back into office again.
I think this article is itself media bias. Apparently the author forgot about the epic lawsuits and class actions both google and apple faced for their handling of wifi logging for location services, google's street view wrist-slaps, and the very recent '4G in Australia' issue apple is currently being litigated for.
People don't 'bash microsoft into the ground' and more than they do the other 'The Man's. And to claim they do is itself dishonest, pro-microsoft bias.
Naomi Klein's book "No Logo" (ISBN-13: 9780312429270) is still relevant regarding corporate branding, and is a rollicking good read if you are an economics nerd: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/no-logo-naomi-klein/1102326802
Gartner couldn't be any more insanely pro MS if they were branded a subsidiary of MS.
In the media, sure. Apple is always launching new gizmos and the media eats it up like a child on Christmas morning. They can't help it if it's a slow news day.
But do tech publications have the same bias? Seems unlikely to me; there's always stories on Slashdot criticising Apple (and Google, and Microsoft.) Same goes for any other tech news site I've seen, baring 9to5mac and such.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
They are no longer seen as tech leaders but as a company that forces you buy from them.
While they get lucky with a few products their innovation generally appears as incompetent and poorly implemented (such as Win 8).
Most people don't like having to buy an updated version of windows and office every few years and start to think another company might be able do a better job.
Heinlein summed it up best: "Everybody hates the fat kid." Microsoft was a media darling in the early '90s when it was a growth company; the little scrappy newcomer fighting against big bad IBM and their bloated, overpriced systems. Once they were #1, press coverage gradually turned against them and they became the new IBM: big, bad M$ and their bloated, overpriced software.
Some of you may have noticed the same thing happening to Google over the past few years. I see more and more negative news stories on them every year. Soon, they'll be hated too.
Bullies have to work extremely hard to loose their reputation as a bully. Non-bullies who mess up are worthy of more lee-way.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook.
I don't know how mainstream media covers these companies, but other than google, I can points out all of these companies being run by people that feel that they are better than their customers. Google may mainly hire PhD's to work for it, but I still get the opinion that they value the people that use their productions, I can't say the same for any of the others. Perhaps I'm wrong on the google part, but I know the other companies are just trying to get my money and or control of what I do.
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
...someone who expects 'the media' to be 'unbiased'. Here's a clue for you: there is no such thing as an unbiased news report.
Just this morning, I was reading the Wall St Journal, and there was an article bashing Google for the Moto purchase. It's was pretty hard on them. The first paragraph of the article mentioned that it was a bad idea, and the rest of it was spent going over every possible reason it was a bad idea, droning over and over again about how Google is probably not a company that actually wants to make stuff. This isn't the first one I've seen either. The coverage of Google+ has been brutal. The coverage of the patent wars has been so incredibly mean spirited at times, that it borders on unprofessional.
And don't even get me started on the totally illiterate, comments from people who didn't read any further than the headline.
You can't compare the coverage Microsoft gets to the coverage Google gets, and say that Google gets a free ride. The argument just doesn't make sense.
Not saying they're going easy on Microsoft, but let's face it. Post Gates Microsoft isn't especially interesting.
The one thing MS is good for is to force me to find replacements for their lousy, bloated, slow products.
If I hadn't gotten sick to death of using Word, I'd never have found LaTeX. Now, as the world's biggest fan of LaTeX, I have taken an oath never to create another Word document as long as I live!
And, of course, I never, ever do anything serious on Windows. It's Unix or Linux for me.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Apple - you had to invite them in and then a cult like upgrade cycle makes the cash flow.
Google - an advertising company with 'open' cover to welcome in developers - track most users most of the time.
FB - an advertising company with 'generational' cover.
MS - the first hit is OEM/educational pricing and they have your boss on an upgrade cycle.
The idea that "something a little off" does cover the path of arrogance left by MS over its long twisted history.
MS wanted the OS, fonts, productivity, the home hardware with its OS, servers, security, the safe cloud, media, games, telco, ads, the web - and once the trust with users, their data, developers, the press, start ups, small and large rivals, standards is gone - its gone for generations.
No amount of very public charity work, tame press, "open information" bait, almost free offers, discounts, cute new products and toys can bring a brand back.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias everywhere.
Microsoft has cleaned up their act quite a bit since the bad old NT days. Nobody bashes Microsoft for having crappy, buggy, crashy software anymore. They don't! (For the most part) They still have plenty to answer for and their past behavior makes many wary. There's a lot of nasty stuff MS was up to in the "bad old days"
Right now they get trashed for their inability to execute outside of their established markets. If it's not server software, windows on the desktop, office software, or (More recently) the xbox then they really dont' do all that well. Worse, they do it very inelegantly. Microsoft seems to pick a market at random, announce their entry, then enter with unguided brute force and money. Failure is the most common result.
People are wary of this approach for good reason. In the past they'd simply announce and FUD up a market and make a bunch of noise to disrupt competitors that they didn't even yet compete with! Remember windows CE? Windows CE existed for one reason only, and that was to destroy palm. Once palm was a non-player, CE development halted. Same for IE. They don't really do that anymore because now they have actual competetors.. But the fact remains that Microsoft enters markets not to compete, but to disrupt and dilute. Web based office, azure cloud computing, windows phone, windows on tablets - All of these are examples of this.
Apple gets trashed plenty too, along with Microsoft's other "Contemporaries". Each gets plenty of flack when something goes wrong. They also get a lot of praise when the do something right. Microsoft's strange hamfisted strategies don't earn them much praise from anyone.
Troll story. Nothing else to say. I wish I could vote for a tag, but it's already there.
If anyone thinks Microsoft is being criticized unfairly, the cure is easy. Just head over to Rob Enderle's website: www.enderlegroup.com. Here are some recent articles:
"Is Google Facing the Beginning of the End?"
"The New iPad: Apple lowers the bar"
"Windows 8 vs. OS X Mountain Lion -- why Apple Suddenly Sucks"
Your esteem for Microsoft will return to an all-time high.
It's a bitch.
That is all.
A telephone that can't reliably place or receive calls (thanks to an exclusive partner, AT&T).
An Internet/multimedia tablet that doesn't support Flash. Or has USB/HDMI ports.
Yes, Apple gets away with a lot. Right now, they can sell a fridge to an eskimo.
Their stories always seem to have a pro-Microsoft angle to them. Here are a few examples:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017860635_microsoftmundie01.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017932842_inpersonkrumm09.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2017939774_microsoft_starts_its_marketing_for_the_nokia_lumia.html
It's nothing to do with supporting a local company either, because they've been doing a round of very anti-Amazon articles too...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017883596_amazonintro25.html
Which of the following four companies is a convicted monopolist?
a) Microsoft
b) Apple
c) Facebook
d) Google
The correct answer is "a" (Microsoft). The leadership that festered that predatory behavior is still at Microsoft. Bill Gates is Chairman, Steve Ballmer is CEO. That's why Microsoft's actions warrant careful scrutiny.
It's unfortunate that the "editors" allowed themselves to be trolled this way.
Microsoft was on the scene and making big noise in the 90's while the the others, Google, Apple and Facebook are big this decade or so. So as they were budding companies, Microsoft force a lot of Microsoft line of thinking down the throats of Americans. I equate this to the when the white man had all the power. Now these three companies and more have grown up in size, similar to the minorities of other races, in this country, and they are demanding to change the rules. So people have had Microsoft around a long time and hold a lot of grudges, and honestly, Microsoft tends to take some extra blame where they shouldn't, similarly so to the actions of whites by all minorties.
Sure you may think my comments are a bit far fetched, but if you really think about it they aren't. I'm not trying to invoke a race discussion, but there are similar correlations metaphorically speaking.
Taulk amongst yer-selves
Well, that would explain why Facebook stole my data.
Microsoft is under particularly intense scrutiny by the public because of the monitoring and threat of a break-up of the company many years ago. Once you've been accused of monopolistic practices, you are forever branded as a monopolist at heart. Your company may survive unbroken, but the public trust is permanently dead.
The only company to ever protect their image in the face of such an investigation was IBM. Even AT&T was never as respected post-breakup as they were prior to being labelled "monopolist", "competitive market place" or no.
Apple has only escaped "unscathed" in the sense that no one has been willing to put it on the table: Apple's predatory supplier pricing is what forces slave-like conditions on their foreign employees. Local market value is irrelevant when the foreign provider is not complying with generally accepted international human rights standards. Buying from such suppliers is unethical and immoral, and Apple is being pressured heavily for it.
But even condoning wage-slavery is not as "evil" in society's eyes as being branded "monopolist."
The only thing that gets an 'merican more ticked off than an abusive monopolist is a "Godless Communist" or "Socialist" (like us Canajuns.)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Microsoft has the longest history of dishonesty and is still running on the big and monopolistic advantage of having the OS _and_ applications developed under the same roof.
And - I it's unknown who had to be "convinced" that the judgment to split OS and application development into two companies.
The thing with US courts is that they are not cut dry cases - this are the facts and based on that, this happens. There are other considerations (or were with the MSoft case besides the judge apparently making errors) - it would harm the economy and stuff like that. A lot of it is political. Justice is not blind - it opens an eye under the blindfold to one or the other side....
Microsoft has changed their act as of late. They are making better products, and spending less time bullying everyone around. But you can't honestly expect their reputation to be clean overnight, they've got two decades of bad behavior that people need to forget about.
Besides that, their name is old fashioned, and it reminds people of the man from back in the day when we all still hated the man. It's you fathers company. No one today can love a tech company that has more than two syllables in it's name. "Microsoft" isn't even relevant anymore. Who even know's what a microcomputer is? And who makes acronyms by attaching the front of words together? They might as well be called spam.
I would have thought the opposite, honestly. Both Facebook and Google have been drug through the mud over privacy issues on numerous occasions and as the new, biggest tech company, Apple is a lightning rod for all matter of attention, such as recent reporting surrounding Chinese manufacturing. Nearly all of the reports focus on Apple even though companies like Foxconn make products for other major companies.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is largely ignored. They're still a huge company, but they really haven't done anything new or interesting in several years. All of their recent consumer products are just their version of something that companies such as Google or Apple have pioneered or acquisitions of existing companies. Anything they've done on the business side isn't terribly newsworthy as far as most consumers are concerned, so even if they make the world's best SQL server, no one will care and it won't be reported.
People still bitch about Microsoft around here, but the average consumer no longer cares. They're not in the lime light so it's much better to sling mud at one of the more popular companies such as Apple, Facebook, or Google. I don't have any statistics or a comprehensive analysis of the news surrounding different companies, but to me it just feels as though people are indifferent towards Microsoft.
I notice everytime Apple farts most news outlets will devote half or more their coverage to explaining how Apple's fart is the sweetest smelling thing ever to enter the scene, even sweeter than their previous fart from just two weeks earlier. Maybe Microsoft should be putting more money into the pockets of big media.
Microsoft's entire market, especially these days, is in the business sector. When they misstep, professionals complain that they are losing real dollars. When apple, google, or facebook missteps, those markets are recreational. They've built entire businesses on the concept that users are just having fun. So if your fun breaks, or changes, meh it's no big deal. So there's no one left to complain about anything significant.
That's how you know that no one's really using those things for anything legitimate. Business keeps on going because business was never depending on it in the first place.
As far as I can tell, MS has by far the longest record of illegal activies, even if only for the fact that they are the oldest company (which I don't believe). The face of IT is mared forever by severe and serious illegal pratices on behalf of MS, especially in the anti-trust dept.
They actually got - and still get - away pretty cheap, if you ask me. The antitrust cases in the 90ies didn't harm them much and outside of their evil grip on PC computing they have a relatively untarnished reputation, like, for instance, in peripheral hardware and gaming consoles. People were actually cheering them on for spending 6 billion $ to take on Sony and Nintendo in the console market and spice things up with a little extra competition. The XBox is actually the only MS product I've actually considered buying in the last 15 years - aside from maybe my first optical mouse and ergo-keyboard.
But back to the issue at hand: MS deserves all the bashing they get, and more so. For example, just imagine Beos having a fair chance and gaining foothold in the PC market. How much different would the world look today? Just one of the countless examples of damage done by MS crimes in the last 2 decades.
The negative press wouldn't be half as bad if MS had been split into Windows and MS Office by the courts back then - which would've been the exact right thing to do.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
How much money have you had to pay Microsoft to license its products, directly or indirectly, over the past 10 years? Did you ever change from Windows to Linux (or whatever) even after having been forced to pay the Microsoft fee in the computer's price? How about to Google? Facebook? Apple?
It's the syllables. 3 is so 1900's and too many.
Not that they simply stole money from me. To license their product on hardware that is 1) still running today and 2) never ran Windows, but still runs Linux. I can easily think of ~$4K they got from me -- money that I would have rather bought more ï£ stock with. That's roughly an additional $285,000 Bill Gates owes me I believe. Of course their antics are the reason I started looking at other companies and choosing the red or blue pill I'll leave for another day.
And as ingeniously stated previously, "karma's a bitch". And frankly I never forget.
Microwho? Troll
When all these companies do something obviously bad, the media is all over them - Microsoft isn't singled out in that regard.
What Bruzzese is really complaining about - whether he realizes it or not - is that the other companies all offer a product that's decidedly popular among the population at large. They all are "cool", to use my out-of-date old guy parlance. Microsoft is no longer cool; and, having lost their mojo, they have no idea how to recapture it. Companies that have captured the imagination of the public are always going to get more and better media coverage.
#DeleteChrome
Microsoft simply isn't the bogeyman it once was. Their attempt to turn the web into a Microsoft proprietary playground failed. If anything, I think people tend to simply care less about Microsoft these days. People are far more likely to react to newer more relevant companies.
This sounds like someone trying to desperately make Microsoft seem more relevant than it really is.
Microsoft is now the legacy vendor. Apple is much more menacing. So are Facebook and Google.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
How many things has Microsoft actually been convicted of? I mean, where the trial actually went through the penalty phase before MS agreed to a side settlement with the DoJ? You know: Where they pay a fine^H^H^H^Hsettlement and agree not to do it again without admitting they did it before.
Not that they are the only ones to go down this path. Its quite common for corporations to keep a clean criminal record by kicking some cash into the kitty every time they screw up.
I wish this option was available to private citizens. I have a business plan to work as an assassin. Just tell me what the settlement fee is in advance and I'll tack in onto the contract price.
Have gnu, will travel.
That's a question? Why of course there is a bias. Two equally two answer to "why":
a) because nobody likes a bully, especially after he starts stumbling
b) that's what 20+ years of fucking everyone you can get your hands on over does to your reputation
On the contrary, I would say that despite their fairly good track record in recent years, MS deserves everything they're getting and the bill is far away from being paid.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So in a sense they are ex-cons. Their overly aggressive behavior has never been forgotten. Nor should it be, and we need to keep an eye on the rest as well.
Is not like Microsoft weren't caugth in the past 3 decades doing things like bribing, hardcoding to disable competing products (like when in Windows 3.something to not run in DR-DOS), offering vaporware, claiming the "most secure operating sytem ever" each year, forcing to exclude alternatives from hardware makers and sellers. Apple, Google and Facebook could had their hits and misses in the past few years, but Microsoft has been this evil the entire lives of a lot of columnists.
I'm sorry, WHAT? I stopped reading after that.
Um, that's not what happened. The problem wasn't terrible (I own an iPhone 4), but it did exist. However, the media (especially the tech media), had a field day. When Consumer Reports denied a recommendation over it, it made the news again. When there were lawsuits, it made the news. When there was a case program, it made the news. "Has Apple slipped?" "Will the 'Grip of Death' strangle the iPhone?" Those were the kind of headlines you were likely to see at the time. Of course it turned out it wasn't a big deal, people bought the phone in droves and loved it. The 4S corrected the issue and sold even better.
When Steve Jobs said "You're holding it wrong", most of the tech media latched on that as showing how out of touch Apple was and how they were hostile to customer issues that harmed the RDF.
So what about Microsoft's treatment with Windows Phone 7? Basically every review I've seen has been quite positive. It turns out the Lumia 900 has a bug that can cause it to fail to connect to the cell network. That's much worse than the grip of death. There are articles, but most of them are going with headlines about how customers are getting $100 rebates and the phone is available for free on contract until the patch ships... basically positive spin.
The worst press I've seen over WP7 has been when sites (such as Ars Technica) say they don't really recommend it because it's not clear if the phones will get updates (since the carriers can delay them) and the software ecosystem is still quite small.
Vista didn't turn out well, but Windows 7 seems to have been very positively received. Windows 8 is divisive, but I don't think that's hit outside the tech media, where as Antennagate and the Foxcon stuff certainly has.
If you take out product launch notices (like when Apple releases a new version of the iPhone or iPad and everyone lines up), and stock news (such as when they hit a record), has there been ANY good press about Apple recently? It seems it's almost all bad. "iPad too hot." "Lion made obnoxious changes." "iPad update means old apps take up more space." "Apple hiring slave labor." "iPad builders get disfigurements." "Apple sued by DOJ over antitrust in books."
I would actually say MS has been slipping out of the news. If it wasn't for the Windows 8 preview released earlier, I don't think they would have gotten much coverage at all.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Currently the best the MS trolls can seem to muster is "UH DURHP WINDOWS ME" or "guilty of anti-trust" both from a decade ago, now go get an apple, google, or wastebook troll fired up and they can spit out at least 10 things just from the last 3 months.
so dude, take a breath, your favorite monopoly is doing OK for now, you can wipe the tears away.
Slashdot is famed for having an anti-Microsoft bias, so asking here is a waste of time.
There are an abundance of Pro-Microsoft/Anti-Everything-Else sites out on the Internet. I'm sure asking those sites will get different responses as well.
If your neighbors don't agree with your ways, move to a neighborhood that does. Obviously, Slashdot has news that resonate with that type of crowd. Maybe that crowd knows something you are putting blinders toward.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
How about the stories about the poor reception of iPhones if you held them the "wrong" way?
How about "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."?
Microsoft: You had to marry me, your parents gave you no other choice. Well, I cheated on you. Many times. And you can't do anything about it. Apple: If you wanna marry me, it's gonna cost you a huge dowry. It's your choice, but once you're in you have to do everything my way. I wear the pants here. Google: You can marry me if you want or not. It'll be an open relationship, we'll try lots of new things. You might not like some of the things I do, but you can leave any time. Is it any wonder that the Microsoft way breeds the most resentment?
Is it because Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist?
Slashdot is famed for having an anti-Microsoft bias, so asking here is a waste of time.
I don't agree with that. The Borg Bill Gates logo was a not that funny joke. It's not even true of Linux users. I see lots of them who like Linux for its dev tools and server stuff, yet still use Windows as their desktop interface. Cf. Samba.
Besides, the vast majority are computer gamers so arguably *have* to run Windows.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
That "Minding your Microsoft Manners" thing might be a little over the top - but compare it to that favourite analogy, the car industry. Would BMW be happy for their partners (dealers) to show up to a meeting in a Mercedes? Would you think maybe, just maybe, talking up the newest Chev to a Ford manager is a good plan? This is basic stuff - if you're working with a company to sell their stuff, you talk up their stuff not the competition?
OTOH, if you were being sarcastic, then as you were.
A little over the top? You really think so? I thought it was subtly done. A very nice piece of work.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I definitely do my share of Apple and Facebook bashing. I refuse to buy an i device because of the forced usage of iTunes to load content.
;)
I only use Facebook to distribute links and other minor data to friends plus keep up with a few people I wouldn't otherwise have any contact with. I find Facebook to be very cumbersome and erratic on privacy settings. Disabling apps got mysteriously re-enabled on it's on.
My biggest problems with Microsoft lately is the same with most big companies; the patent trolling and they seem to want to take Windows in ways that annoy both users and people supporting those users. They are like supermarkets that insist on changing the whole store around to make the store "fresh" yet just confuses the hell out of customers. Plus they seem to want to reinvent the wheel with every version of the OS rather than building on stable code/features. It's no surprise that they aren't doing as well as they used to because it cost lots of $ to reinvent things over and over and over...
I admit I haven't bashed Google as much as they deserve, give me time.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
With it's anti-privacy measure getting stronger and stronger every iteration, how is it this company gets away without a dark cloud of a media bias anyway?
Nothing to see.
"J. Peter Bruzzese questions whether Microsoft receives unfair criticism in the media, while Apple, Facebook, and Google seem to get away from missteps unscathed".
I would have thought it's the exact opposite. A more relevent question is how much does each company spend in engaging in planting false stories in the tech press.
AccountKiller
Think BSOD.. It only takes one day of lost work to form a lasting impression of quality associated with a company..
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Some of us have memories. Some of us have been stung. Many times. Some of us still can't believe that people even touch your products.
On a ranking of evil in IT, I'd probably go more for something like:
Microsoft
Sony
Apple
Facebook
Google
That's not to say that Google is perfect (far from it), but there's at least options to opt out of most of the evilness without too much inconvenience. Why Facebook is on the list, I don't know - dragging in something from a completely different sector of the industry really just stinks of trying to cover your arse to me. But for years Facebooks privacy and user-choices about letting you do what you wanted with the service were atrocious.
At the top, though, there's a vast gap between companies. Sony and Microsoft are pretty joint and I assure you that Sony gets a lot more flak than MS ever will purely because they cover so many more markets.
But MS is the only company that has a LONG history of doing these things. Hell, they were doing them to me when I was a kid (I had DR DOS!) and some of those other companies were either a) at the peak of their success, b) veering into obscurity (even if they did later recover) or c) didn't exist back then.
And claiming that MS somehow don't *deserve* a lot of the negative press they get, especially amongst consumers, is quite ridiculous. They've always had SOMETHING that stupid and hateful in their product line (they just tripled SQL Server costs, didn't they?) whether it's XBoxes overheating, or Windows ME being a pile of turd, or disabling of RPC1 drives, or horrendous network filesystem performance because of media-scanning, or RDP holes being discovered NOW (when RDP been's around for, what, a decade or more?) etc.
Sony only make a few gaffes a year, at that, and their ever-ongoing prices that induce laughter. MS seem to pull out something every few weeks (MS India failing to keep check on its representatives).
At even at the consumer end, for those people who *don't* keep up with tech news or care how evil a company is, MS still has a terrible reputation. I'm not really surprised. Have you seen the price of Windows / Office to the average consumer in a shop? Have you seen how easy it is for a bunch of innocent kids to break a family PC software setup completely so it's basically unusable, even without admin privileges? Have you looked at the impact to your non-business customers when you enforce new, incompatible file formats and new software paradigms without any guess what to do (Windows 8 springs to mind, which deletes the Start button and replaces it with an invisible "hover" panel in the same area - REALLY obvious to an old granny or a 7-year-old)? Have you seen the mess that IE has made of the Internet?
Microsoft pretty much get what they deserve. Where they are successful, people buy and praise (Kinect seems to have gone down very well, but even then you were screwing over people who want to develop on it for PC for months, etc.). The problem is that your userbase is so large, and you focus on so little of it (e.g. profit-making large business), that you upset the majority of people every time you do something and don't care. Seriously. Go look at Windows Phone again. And look at the reactions to Windows 8. Are you really going to just ignore them?
You've sown the seeds for this DECADES ago with the techs (most of whom will find it difficult to trust you again) and for years now with the average guy. And you wonder why you get more hate than Google?
It's not just one day's work from a BSOD. If someone was incompetent or malicious enough to deploy Windows in a mission critical environment, it can make a mess that takes thousands (or more) man-hours to clean up. With multiple people depending on a system, one BSOD can take a bite out of many days.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Look at google. Everybody already doing the stuff google does, but google gets the trouble for it. For example: wifi-mapping. The Press' Opinion: "Evil evil google!"
Bluecoat - I mean nobody ever really thows stones at Squid/Baracuda/Websense etc... I mean I would think with the heated arguments from the public would have a big bulls-eye on Websense before Barracuda had there been some intelligence in the mob.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Until they stop intimating - without ever bothering to offer proof - that Linux has stolen their IP, they do still deserve more hate than love.
They did IE6. They deserve everything.
Adaptec RAID 6805... average joe.
SAS RAID controllers would be a complete non-starter without Linux support. Adaptec or not. ESX support is just as important.
Using this as a SATA controller? This is a $600 card. Why?
Sorry, I don't see this as an "average joe" card. FWIW, an "above-average joe" would be better "served" by buying a complete HP DL360 server, including SAS disk (and controller). These are available (used) for under $2000.
And the 6805's driver will be incorporated INTO the Linux native drivers in short order, at which point it will be ready for "average joe". But this (historically) will NEVER happen with Microsoft Windows.
Also, since you are running 7x3TB, you are above the safe limit for RAID5. You may wish to consider using ZFS (possibly BTRFS) instead for data integrity (putting my architect hat on). I would strongly recommend that change.
Hardware RAID would be recommended if using much smaller drives. 146GB 15k, (or, possibly 300 or 600GB). 1TB+ drives really need ZFS for reliability (and the smaller drives are ok as well).
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Have been using a Mac at work for nearly a year now. Prior to that, used Win7 PC for 1.5 yrs. What I found surprising on the Mac, when I experience an app crash, the whole system freezes, locks up. I cannot do a single thing to close the process becuase I cannot launch anything via the UI.
I have not had such experience with the Win7 PC. Apps crashed, but never locked my system up.
Overall, both are rock-solid stable, with crashes occuring extremely infrequently, however, I do prefer Windows' way of handling crashes.
Take it for what it's worth.
I was discussing MS with someone several years back, and he said "just the fact that we are having this discussion indicates there is a problem." This is so true. But don't treat the word "indicates" as gospel - it's just a strong indicator, not the last word. The more often you get these indications, the more seriously you need to take them.
And the article is just more Microsoft propaganda
Infoworld might at least mentioned this:
http://www.devconnections.com/conf/speakers.aspx?s=164
From the article:
Because it's true. How many offensive lawsuits has been filed by Microsoft, or Microsoft proxies such as scox, acaia, or whatever? And how many has google filed? Was Google buying up patents before MS's lawsuit blitz? Google opposes software patents, does Microsoft?
Since the early 1990s, I've been disgusted with how pop-media rags, such as infoworld put a crazy pro-msft spin on their so-called "news."
Now Microsoft is playing the victim? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
All JMHO, of course.
Absolutely, just a few items, off the top of my head, about MS's shameful - and mostly unreported - history.
1) Microsoft fully funded, and supported the scox-scam right from the begining.
2) MS outright lied to the US DoJ in video-taped testimony.
3) MS caught red-handed bribing officials at ISO during
4) MS caught red-handed astro-turfing on many occasions. My favorite was the letters from dead people campaign.
5) MS caught paying shills such as Florian Mueller, or Rob Enderle.
6) MS gets Washington taxpayer to spend $11 million to build a bridge on MS campus
7) MS fires thousand of US workers in 2009, and replaces those workers with Indian H1Bs in 2009. All the while MS insisting that they could not find any US workers. Watch HDnet, Dan Rather, piece "No Thanks For Everything."
8) MS patents fat32, and sues TomTom, and B&N.
I could go on. Point is: media has been overly kind to MS, if anything.
Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc all suck nowadays. They get propaganda from the media they control, either directly or by astroturfing, and get bashed by the media that are controlled by others.