The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Apple, Microsoft, Oracle... Whatever. Most suck, anyway. But...

(See in situ)

Cyril's picture

Apple, Microsoft, Oracle... Whatever. Most suck, anyway. But...

Dear OP,

I noticed your somewhat inflammatory post (not to me, but to some commenters below, seemingly) ... and after pondering a bit... I just thought I could share my opinion.

Unlike others below, I won't try, nor am I for the tiniest bit interested in, to denounce a supposedly hidden agenda for your accusations against Apple Inc.

Also part of my disclaimer: I don't claim stating any truth - but only my opinion of course, out of my own experience as a software dev. practitioner.

Seriously, IMO, you're just hitting at a dead cow (horse?)

Sincerely, I'm telling you:

I think Apple fairly sucks. So does Microsoft.

I don't fear to be condescending towards these giants because I like reality.

I have realistic criteria, I think, to measure innovation:

* how far do you influence the markets and consumer habits with your technology?
* at what cost?
* by suing your competitors how far, with the help of stupid bureaucrats?
* charging your customers how much?
* limiting your customers' freedom how tight?

(I guess you see by now where I'm going...)

See, I make a great living thanks to Microsoft specifically. They LITERALLY feed me and my family. Yet, I don't even work for them. I only work for a company (among 1000s others) struggling to use their crappy - or very average - very "whatever" - technologies.

Well, yes, it's BECAUSE I HAVE EATEN OF THE MS CRAP for a living since '95. I know THE COMPLETE MESS of their "software stack" (indeed!) DAMN WELL. I can make myself familiar with any of their "new" technologies - OR BUGS - in days. And that's why I am SO DAMN WELL PAID (AND TAXED!) FOR: to have the MESSY damn thing work for whatever my employer decides to do with (which is out of my control - spending decisions-wise).

If you ask me, the last time they significantly innovated for the long term was like 12 years ago. MAYBE. I haven't seen ANYTHING interesting from either Microsoft or Apple IN YEARS.

In the case of Microsoft: inside-out; in the case of Apple: on the surface, anyway; really nothing exciting to me that I didn't know was in the drawers of smaller guys months, years or decades before, and that the giants thanks to their size could afford taking over without anyone noticing, eventually. Often times, David does lose against Goliath, we like it or not...

DON'T MISREAD ME: I ***DID*** mention the investment criterion. Don't forget that part.

When you are SUCH GIANTS, putting THAT MANY millions of $$$ in R & D to only release the blah blah, "whatever" N+1 version of your product that SURPRISES NOBODY ... that's rather LAME.

I am very harsh, am I not?

Well, yes and no... I believe it's in the natural order of things... when you get so big... it's extremely difficult to remain REALLY INNOVATIVE - to stay capable TO PROPOSE TECHNOLOGY PARADIGM SHIFTS.

TRUE innovation occurs at the small guys. THOSE that nobody talks about or even notice. The small guys where some of the tech or business folks are sometimes co opted by the giants. Thus, what we see on TV, reported by ignorant anchors, about the big players' so-called innovation "breakthroughs" in this or that is like 99% of the time... pure b.s. - sure, it takes some years of experience in the field to understand that, eventually.

I now have near 18 of those years, on this end. But I'm still learning a few things when I'm lucky, sure. Again: mostly from the small guys - those you hear about by word of mouth, mostly. That's whom I watch. Because that's where I know the giants are also lurking at. Duh!

In 18 years I could already anticipate the next techno move from MS, at least two times I think, without even ever working for them - and before any tiniest leak from whomever... Just by watching at how their codebase would evolve. (Cf. reverse engineering, etc) Rather Boring. So, tell me about "innovation" there... I don't see any reason why Apple would be any different, but since I don't know their crap, I'm not really interested in distracting myself... Maybe when I "retire" I'll have more time to lurk broader, and really if I'm too bored.

Of course, Open Source software is a completely different story - where not everything is green or pink, either; but that'd be fairly off topic re: your post, I suppose...

So, your post has chosen the wrong target, IMO:

it doesn't really matter whether Apple presumably has more and more monopolistic or licensing lock down habits... what they propose to the market is VERY AVERAGE if not downright LAME ***ANYWAY***... Just as MS, just as Oracle, you name them - the vast majority of the big guys.

What I find much more relevant TO FIGHT AGAINST is the plunder by parasitic statist regulators (WHO HAVE NO CLUE OF WHAT TECHNOLOGY AND FREEDOMS ARE ABOUT) against the small guys... DISCOURAGING the true sources of innovation.

Fighting that fight, I believe, is the true defense of free markets - for fair competition - and ultimately, the modern advancement of society as a whole - consumers and producers.

I do NOT suggest to make laws against "size" (albeit anti-monopolistic AND due bankruptcy laws, at least, are a good idea, I think, if enforced with fairness).

I'm just saying: don't hit at the giants who profit from CRONYISM.

Denounce the mechanics of cronyism, instead. You'll hit at the root of the evil (the evil against free markets AND TRUE innovation), and not just at this or that specific branch that spawned from it - and no matter how big and (often irrationally) "popular" that one is.


just IMO, anyway.

Makes sense?


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius