Who gets to define evil? They're all bad somehow but in different ways. This just seems like dumb fanboy bait and well below HN's usually higher standards.
Apple pioneered both the tax evasion schemes and "ecosystem lock-in" anti-competitive practices that Google has tried to replicate (the former successfully, the latter not so much).
Apple is also much more actively litigious and commits a lot of human rights violations in the production of its hardware.
On the other hand, Google has some really serious and insidious data collection/privacy stuff going on, as well as a general stranglehold on the internet--something that I see as a fundamental conflict of interest. Google is the de facto gatekeeper of the internet and also competes with businesses behind its own gates.
I picked Apple, but can see arguments for either one. I don't think Microsoft really compares to either, but would be interested in hearing about why I might be wrong in this regard.
These are all great companies that have done a lot to improve the world. I have a hard time calling any of them evil. I think the harshest criticism that they should receive is that (Google and Apple specifically) aggressively optimized their business around labor and tax laws to the point of conflict with the spirit of those laws.
> (Google and Apple specifically) aggressively optimized their business around labor and tax laws to the point of conflict with the spirit of those laws.
This is pretty forgiving language to describe two companies that actively (illegally) colluded to depress the market value of their senior employees.
Good point. From my point of view, no poach agreements are entirely immoral and, as you point out, also illegal. In this case both companies clearly crossed a boundary. From what I've seen, however, the damage done in this case isn't noticeable relative to the global scale that these companies operate on.
There are other situations where each one of these companies has been sued and lost (Microsoft was an illegal monopoly once.)
I would argue that occasional missteps are not grounds for calling something evil. Most people, for example, would admit to having made immoral mistakes in the past and I've met very few evil people.
Since you didn't put Oracle on the list I must assume you're not serious. But if Oracle was on the list I would vote for Oracle. Otherwise to me, "They're all as good as each other".
Microsoft is like a senior citizen with a dark criminal past. We look at him and seem somebody who is feeble and harmless, and forget that he's served time for rape and murder.
Google is young and fit and strong. Sometimes he's so brash and clueless that he steps on people and they get hurt. We are more concerned about his potential for wrongdoing than for whatever bad things he has actually done.
IMO, Microsoft has far more real, tangible crimes and misdeeds in their past than Google has.
It's a common meme nowadays that Microsoft's crimes are deep in the misty past, that their domination is over, and that they seem to have turned over a new leaf. It's true that they have failed (despite their best efforts) to secure hegemony in the "new world" computing paradigm, which has proportionally weakened their influence (as many people actively use smartphones and tablets who would not bother with a traditional laptop). The server space they never really truly owned. But they still have a virtual stranglehold on general-purpose computing. Microsoft Office is still "standard". 3rd party "industry standard" software like 3ds Max is Windows-only. Niche industrial hardware comes with Windows-only drivers. When you can walk into PC World and walk out with a beefy top-spec computer that doesn't run Windows, then we may talk of Microsoft's fall from power. Not before.
As for crimes, they haven't stopped: to this day they win government contracts through bribery (just google 'Microsoft bribery'). Then there's their documented collusion with the NSA, in particular the whole business with buying and MITMing Skype. And have we so quickly forgotten SecureBoot?
Ah, do we so quickly forget the predatory tactics that Microsoft used to kill many startups in the '90s? Viable and game changing startups like RealNetworks, Netscape, etc
15 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 36.0 ms ] threadHere are some criticism lists of the companies:
Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.
Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
Apple is also much more actively litigious and commits a lot of human rights violations in the production of its hardware.
On the other hand, Google has some really serious and insidious data collection/privacy stuff going on, as well as a general stranglehold on the internet--something that I see as a fundamental conflict of interest. Google is the de facto gatekeeper of the internet and also competes with businesses behind its own gates.
I picked Apple, but can see arguments for either one. I don't think Microsoft really compares to either, but would be interested in hearing about why I might be wrong in this regard.
Does Microsoft use the same manufactors for their hardware but doesn't do anything when people complain. Where as Apple constantly responds.
This is pretty forgiving language to describe two companies that actively (illegally) colluded to depress the market value of their senior employees.
edited to add source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
There are other situations where each one of these companies has been sued and lost (Microsoft was an illegal monopoly once.)
I would argue that occasional missteps are not grounds for calling something evil. Most people, for example, would admit to having made immoral mistakes in the past and I've met very few evil people.
Microsoft is like a senior citizen with a dark criminal past. We look at him and seem somebody who is feeble and harmless, and forget that he's served time for rape and murder.
Google is young and fit and strong. Sometimes he's so brash and clueless that he steps on people and they get hurt. We are more concerned about his potential for wrongdoing than for whatever bad things he has actually done.
IMO, Microsoft has far more real, tangible crimes and misdeeds in their past than Google has.
As for crimes, they haven't stopped: to this day they win government contracts through bribery (just google 'Microsoft bribery'). Then there's their documented collusion with the NSA, in particular the whole business with buying and MITMing Skype. And have we so quickly forgotten SecureBoot?