Well said, carl. I'd like to add another 'definition' for what it means when one says: Company so-and-so is 'evil'.
It can also simply mean they are taking a direction that is profoundly bad for your own future, and which is something many other folks will get easily riled up about. As an easy way to influence business decisions, you create a storm about it and, perhaps, get that company to change its ways just to get rid of the negative press. This is where the morality and antropomorphization of a company does come into play. Even if a move isn't easily sold as 'unethnical', if it can be easily sold as 'immoral', you can go to the soapbox with it. Purely in an attempt to sway the business proposition of staying the course for the company in question. I don't think doing this is itself immoral. It also feels pretty natural: Company X is doing something that screws us all. So in trade we start badmouthing company X any chance I get. Fairly natural response by a community and saying that a company is just a business and it has as many morals as the tidal waves is therefore missing the point. Sure: The company will indeed not change just because we tell a company what they're doing is morally bad. That's why you tell (potential) clients instead, on the basis that buying from a company that does immoral, 'evil' deeds is partly immoral itself (you're supporting it) and partly shooting yourself in the foot. On Apr 9, 9:40 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.
