First, nobody at Microsoft posted an article. I answered a question on Quora, before the Yale incident even occurred. Quora reached out and asked if they could publish on Forbes, which I said was fine. I updated to add the Yale example, which has already been discussed on HN, so I don't rehash, but please note nobody has ever suggested Yale lied. I've suggested they did not great science, which is very much not the same thing.
The statement "Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors" seems to be exactly what I'm talking about. Can you honestly say that you think, in the many years that Microsoft have been producing some incredibly popular software that powers much of what makes modern business productive, that the company has done absolutely no good for anyone? If that's your actual belief, I don't even know how to discuss this with you, as it just seems transparently to be untrue. What is the alternative that you think would have powered this revolution? Nobody is going "damn, that cotton gin forced out all those sickle makers, they really hurt society". Bringing advancements to market has helped human society immensely; how do you see the enhancements Microsoft has brought differently?
Again, Microsoft never brought any advances to those industries. They provided a platform (closely identical to those offered by numerous alternatives) on which the real software that made these advancements was hosted on. Your argument is the same as saying that Ford is responsible for nuclear power because their trucks deliver the fuel to the plants. If there was no Ford, then Toyota trucks could deliver the same fuel with no noticeable differences to anyone or the industry. Same for Windows and plant controller software that runs on it.
So if you agree that Ford did not do the nuclear industry any favours, you must accept that Microsoft did not do the manufacturing industry any favours. Both companies simply got a nice income for providing a necessary but widely available resource. Saying Microsoft is the one bringing the advancements is just silly.
I honestly don't know how to reply to that kind of argument, in that it feels like the evidence both overwhelming and widely available that Microsoft has, in fact, provided innovation. Look at the sheer number of patents the company holds; we can debate patent law until the end of days, but in the meantime, it is worth looking at the things that Microsoft brought to market. And then look at Microsoft Research, which produces literally thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers every year, dealing with numerous advancements in technology.
Ford is an interesting example. Arguably, without Ford's advancements in manufacturing, automation, and mass industrialization, we don't get the modern car, which unquestionably has made nuclear power possible. In a very Civilization way, you can't get to nuclear power without modern transportation.
So what you seem to be suggesting is a counterfactual world where some other software (let's say Apples, for argument's sake) rose to prominence instead of Microsoft. It is possible that they might also have done an amazing job of putting a PC on every desk. But we have no way of knowing that and what we do know, in the reality in which we currently live, that Microsoft did an excellent job of pushing computing out of the lab and into the home.
And there seems to me to be decent evidence that we'll continue to make those sort of innovations that push technology forward. While you're welcome to call me "silly", I think saying that Microsoft has introduced absolutely no advancements to the marketplace is silly. So maybe we simply can't come to a place of agreement because we're not working from the same set of facts?
Ok, while I might agree that surely Microsoft has been beneficial to someone over the years other than Microsoft, and while I might also say that I preferred various versions of Windows to Mac or forms of Linux up until some years ago and I have quite a bit of experience with Microsoft technologies that I don't regret that much, when you say something like this 'Nobody is going "damn, that cotton gin forced out all those sickle makers, they really hurt society".' it is pretty ludicrous because HEY! people think the cotton gin hurt society for a whole other reason than it drove out the sickle makers!!
Sorry, perhaps I made the point badly: you're nodding at exactly what I was trying to say. The reason to get angry about the things people produce is for their actual social ramifications (like slavery), not for the fact that they moved technology forward in a way that discontinued the use of another technology.
Hence, it makes perfect sense to take pot shots at Microsoft if you think we actually and materially harmed society in the way that slavery did. But, and I could be wrong, it feels like most people are not critiquing not for actual damage but because in rising to popularity, other technologies did not.
Thanks for clarifying; I'm just a damn scientist, so things that are clear in my head don't always come out fully on screen. Truly appreciated.
The statement "Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors" seems to be exactly what I'm talking about. Can you honestly say that you think, in the many years that Microsoft have been producing some incredibly popular software that powers much of what makes modern business productive, that the company has done absolutely no good for anyone? If that's your actual belief, I don't even know how to discuss this with you, as it just seems transparently to be untrue. What is the alternative that you think would have powered this revolution? Nobody is going "damn, that cotton gin forced out all those sickle makers, they really hurt society". Bringing advancements to market has helped human society immensely; how do you see the enhancements Microsoft has brought differently?