I'm not sure I understand the difference between morals and ethics in business. To me, whatever fine differences between them, they're both irrelevant without a context. Ethical to whom? If one party tricks another party out of some advantage in a legal fashion, someone may call it playing close to the line and someone else may call it unethical, immoral, evil, etc. What's the difference? At the end of the day, one party got something from another, possibly against their will, and there is no immediate recourse. That's pure free market for you. It's not always about friendly companies trying to one-up each other to please Joe-the-customer. Sometimes doing unethical, or indeed illegal, acts is worth it, as you mention yourself, and so they do. But that's the beauty of corporations -- they are much more predictable than individuals. That's what makes them not people and ascribing emotionally charged values to them or their actions is pointless to the discussion.
Yes, a company may adopt an overall strategy to attack another company, grab market share, defraud customers, or make an acquisition in a way that we could describe as being against a certain system of values. And we can say that this strategy gives said company a certain reputation. What I argue though is that if the situation changes, that company might turn that strategy 180 degrees should it appear favorable to them. So it's a little different from a person, who's known to be a cheat -- it's all about circumstances that company finds itself in (those circumstances may include the make-up of its shareholders or board of directors, but it's still not the same as attributing an adjective to the company itself and all it encompasses). On Apr 9, 3:40 pm, carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't confuse morals with ethics. (or ethics with legality) In the > end, companies are run by people and companies interact with people. > The morality of the people at the company isn't at question, but the > interactions between the company and people and other companies can be > judged as ethical or not. That's not anthropomorphizing. If you hear > me saying "Microsoft is Evil" what I mean is that "Microsoft > frequently practices in unethical interactions with people". (So I > guess I am taking a little poetic license with "Evil".) > > It is the imperative of companies, at least public corporations, to > make money for the owners (shareholders). This will often be at the > expense of other, competing, companies. No problem. But there are > areas that a company can go which is close to illegal but not quite > close enough to get caught. Abusing market leadership in monopolistic > was is one. And, maybe they do get caught, and often, but the > penalties are too little and too late. I think of this aggressive and > sometimes illegal activity as unethical, regardless of the morality of > anyone involved. > > I believe this was the case with Microsoft and the antitrust actions > against them in the past. Apple, on the other hand, hasn't gotten > there yet, but could be going in that direction. > > On Apr 9, 11:10 am, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Corporations are not people. They are neither good nor evil. Let's not > > anthropomorphize them. They make money, or at least try to. That's it. > > Microsoft made a bunch of money, as did Apple. They've both made moves > > some people were irked by and they continue to do that. They both try to > > control as much of their market segment as they can. If you're on the > > receiving end of the money, life is good. If you're feeling stepped on as > > a consumer or a developer, not so much. Either way, they are corporations > > with no more moral character than a tidal wave. > > > Alexey > > 2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS) > > 2002 Suzuki Bandit 1200S > > 1992 Kawasaki > > EX500http://azinger.blogspot.comhttp://bsheet.sourceforge.nethttp://wcolla... > > > ________________________________ > > From: carl <[email protected]> > > To: The Java Posse <[email protected]> > > Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 1:42:36 PM > > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Posse anti-Microsoft bias can lead to > > whitewashing of other companies' record > > > I'm still in the camp with Tor. > > > I think historically Microsoft has built its business on questionable > > ethics, going back almost 30 years. Selling mediocre products in > > monopoly-controlled markets. Forcing OEMs to bundle Windows. etc. > > Maybe they are getting better, but they now have the burden to prove > > that they can "play nice". At least to me I am once or more bitten. > > > Apple on the other hand has mostly tried to compete by making > > innovative products with excellent user experience. They gained large > > market share with the iPod and iPhone with good products, not with > > shady deals. But I do agree now that they are on a slippery slope with > > some of their aggressive lock-in tactics. I'll keep using their > > products as long as they make my life easier. But, who knows, I may > > end up with an Android phone next, and use it along side my MacBook > > Pro and iPad :) > > > On Apr 9, 5:07 am, zeevb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 1:44 am, Tor Norbye <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I know that Apple is very unpopular right now for having a closed > > > > garden, and I think we all wish things were more open. But that's not > > > > the same as the things we've seen from Microsoft in the past > > > > You may be right but it seems that Apple is heading in that direction > > > and their "closed garden" is full of thorns. > > > The first one, which I think the Posse mentioned in the past > > > (regarding the iPhone) is the banning of Java from the iPhone OS. I > > > recall that in the early days of the iPhone you had some hopes > > > (especially Dick) that Java support will arrive - but it didn't. Then > > > you mentioned that it may arrive by cross compilation but now with the > > > release of the iPhone OS 4 SDK Apple is banning any cross compilation > > > so there will be no Java (or any other language besides Objective-C, C > > > and C++). I expected that the JAVA Posse will show a bit more > > > criticism for a company banning the use of the Java language on its > > > platform. > > > > Second - the app store approval process - Dick mentioned the ban of > > > Google Voice which was clearly done for non-technical reasons. As I > > > mantioned before in this group, Paul Graham has a well written blog > > > post on this -http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html > > > > Third - it seems that their HTC patent suite is part of FUD tactics > > > against Android. Wil Shipley, in an open letter to Steve Jobs > > > regarding the HTC litigation wrote: > > > "You’ve famously taken and built on ideas from your competitors, > > > as have I, as we should, as great artists do. Why is what HTC has done > > > worse? Whether an idea was patented doesn’t change the morality of > > > copying it, it only changes the ability to sue. […] > > > If Apple becomes a company that uses its might to quash > > > competition instead of using its brains, it’s going to find the > > > brainiest people will slowly stop working there. You know this, you > > > watched it happen at Microsoft." > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
