I'm not quite sure the author justified tacking 'And Why Microsoft's Still Evil' onto the title. I suppose one could make the argument that 'soulless company' (author's words) equates to 'evil', but if that's the case, then the author should have spent some time arguing why Microsoft is soulless (instead of simply asserting it as a universal truth). As it's written, everything after the ellipses in the title feels more like link-bate than a genuine representation of the posting.
Many people hate Microsoft because it’s a soulless company. Apple has a ton of fans because it stands for insanely good design and anti-authoritarianism. Steve Jobs is cool, Bill Gates isn’t.
While the first statement may be true, I have a very hard time picturing Apple as anti-auhtoritarianism. If anything I would say they are the biggest representative of auhtoritarianism in the computing industry today. If his argument is that being authoritative is unpopular, this makes for a whopping contradiction in the main reasons outlined.
That said, the article's discussion on motivation while not revolutionary in any sense seems absolutely valid. Might be OK to have in the back of your head if you are starting a company, or want to recruit developers to your new FOSS project.
