Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Be Good

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 209 posts

Re: Be Good

#181

Post by pg »

SwellJoe wrote: post #179
pg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I said was that if Microsoft cared about users, they'd recommend they switch to OSX. You replied that Apple hardware comes at a premium. I replied that this premium is less than the difference between new and used hardware, and that using OSX only costs about $500. Could you find a laptop capable of running Vista for significantly less than that? If not, how am I mistaken?

As plinkplonk pointed out, you're suggesting it is good for consumers to choose a single supplier solution for both hardware and software. Not just any single supplier, but very nearly the highest cost supplier (you can spend more, but you get better quality hardware if you do). I just think there is a very clear comparison to be made between IBM in 1983 and Apple today, and it seems that your enjoyment of Apple prod…

I just think there is a very clear comparison to be made between IBM in 1983 and Apple today

The comparison is clearer between Apple in 1983 and Apple today. Not surprisingly.

I never said that it was better for consumers to have a single supplier of hardware and software. All I said was that users would be better off running OSX than Vista. It happens that OSX is made by a company that also makes the hardware, but that wasn't the reason I was saying people would be better off using it. I wasn't saying that Apple won't, if they get dominant market share, turn into an evil monopoly, or that a company who broke said monopoly wouldn't be Robin Hood. All I was saying was what I actually said.

Re: Be Good

#182

Post by rsanheim »

jimbokun wrote: post #80
nostrademons wrote: post #21

Peter Drucker said much the same thing: profit is the cost of doing business, not the purpose . The true purpose of a business is to provide goods & services to its customers. The "profit motive" is essentially a check on the resources consumed by the business, to ensure that it's not spending resources inefficiently, much as PG mentions in the 2nd footnote. Up until the 1970s, it was common for corporations to be ma…

Recommendations for good Drucker books, particularly those with appeal for the Startup and/or Hacker mentality?

The Effective Executive is fantastic -- not just for C-level execs, but anyone who has to "execute" every day using only their own intelligence and experience (read: anyone working in software or business).

Re: Be Good

#183

Post by guyk »

kleevr wrote: post #145
guyk wrote: post #95

Oh man does this ring some bells for me. I started bugmenot.com years ago to help people. And then I started retailmenot.com with much the same end in mind. Because people dug bugmenot I got the critical mass I needed for retailmenot to work. Then it turns out you can make money off online shopping stuff. Fast forward to now, we've got 5 staff still building cool stuff (that helps people), having fun and making money…

Thanks for building bugmenot btw. I've used that site on and off for the last 2 years or so, I always look before I start a bullshit account. What kind of conversion do you get when a person looks up a site, doesn't find a working account, leading to a new user submission for the site in question?

Thanks for the props and a good question on conversion but one I don't think I have numbers to answer.

Numbers I do know: * around 100k visitors per day * 1,021,791 logins * 187,047 sites

A certain percentage of those logins will be invalid though.

Re: Be Good

#184

Post by SwellJoe »

pg wrote: post #181
SwellJoe wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As plinkplonk pointed out, you're suggesting it is good for consumers to choose a single supplier solution for both hardware and software. Not just any single supplier, but very nearly the highest cost supplier (you can spend more, but you get better quality hardware if you do). I just think there is a very clear comparison to be made between IBM in 1983 and Apple today, and it seems that your enjoyment of Apple prod…

I just think there is a very clear comparison to be made between IBM in 1983 and Apple today The comparison is clearer between Apple in 1983 and Apple today. Not surprisingly. I never said that it was better for consumers to have a single supplier of hardware and software. All I said was that users would be better off running OSX than Vista. It happens that OSX is made by a company that also makes the hardware, but t…

My understanding of what you considered the benevolence of Microsoft was that they allowed a low-cost IBM PC compatible computer market to develop, which allowed people who wouldn't have been able to afford a PC to do so. Apple has never been accused of being a low-cost, or even affordable, computer supplier (and the existence of a used market doesn't invalidate that--a used PC running Windows XP or, better in my opinion, Linux is going to be even cheaper and within reach of more people). If the dramatically lowered price point for a personal computer was not the benevolence of Microsoft, according to your argument, and the price of a personal computer doesn't matter to your argument, then I will humbly stand corrected. Though I think I'll need some clarification about what the benevolence of Microsoft was, if not that, as I'm drawing a blank on anything else good that came out of Redmond.

But, all that I actually said to start with was that I was amused that you praised Apple...the earlier criticism of IBMs abuse of power and the benevolence of Microsoft in breaking down the IBM monopoly made for an amusing contrast to me, an outsider who generally uses neither Apple nor Microsoft products and doesn't really consider Mac OS X a significantly superior OS to Windows Vista or XP. I don't really care which is "better" in this discussion, as "better" wasn't a qualification for Microsoft's benevolence.

I found it amusing, that's all. I really didn't mean to stir up so much argument about it. If I were the type that used smileys, I would have included one in my first post...but I figured "amusing" would cover it. ;-)

Re: Be Good

#185

Post by euccastro »

Prrometheus wrote: post #121
nostrademons wrote: post #21

Peter Drucker said much the same thing: profit is the cost of doing business, not the purpose . The true purpose of a business is to provide goods & services to its customers. The "profit motive" is essentially a check on the resources consumed by the business, to ensure that it's not spending resources inefficiently, much as PG mentions in the 2nd footnote. Up until the 1970s, it was common for corporations to be ma…

The idea that a corporation should be managed for the benefit of its shareholders, also known as "fiduciary duty", arose as a reaction to snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century who would sell interests in phantom companies and run off with the money. The advantage of such a principle is that it tends to be fairly clean cut and easy to judge when someone has violated it. If we allow managers to work by some other stan…

How is it better to leave them some weak justification, even to legally require them, to do just anything for shareholer value, even defrauding or doing wrong to the community as a whole?

Re: Be Good

#186

Post by euccastro »

yters wrote: post #99
gruseom wrote: post #5

The business literature of previous generations often talked about "service to mankind" as an ingredient of success. This essay sheds some light on what they might have meant by that.

One issue, though, is that "good" seems to have a different definition for many of the really successful startups, i.e. being "robin hood." But, I am still not comfortable calling piracy a form of beneficial stealing. I do think such a thing exists in the realm of necessities for life, but free proprietary media is not a necessity. Such a business model is actually parasitic since a lot of capital is necessary to cre…

we could eliminate money, since computer technology gives us much more efficient ways to quantify transactions.

For example?

Re: Be Good

#187

Post by euccastro »

SwellJoe wrote: post #184
pg wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just think there is a very clear comparison to be made between IBM in 1983 and Apple today The comparison is clearer between Apple in 1983 and Apple today. Not surprisingly. I never said that it was better for consumers to have a single supplier of hardware and software. All I said was that users would be better off running OSX than Vista. It happens that OSX is made by a company that also makes the hardware, but t…

My understanding of what you considered the benevolence of Microsoft was that they allowed a low-cost IBM PC compatible computer market to develop, which allowed people who wouldn't have been able to afford a PC to do so. Apple has never been accused of being a low-cost, or even affordable, computer supplier (and the existence of a used market doesn't invalidate that--a used PC running Windows XP or, better in my opi…

But, all that I actually said to start with was that I was amused that you praised Apple...

He didn't praise, or otherwise judge, Apple.

He made a passing remark on the utility of two particular products. He didn't compare companies, and he didn't compare goodnesses.

Re: Be Good

#188

Post by euccastro »

yters wrote: post #98
andreyf wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is porn evil?

Same way as drugs and alcohol are evil. They create addictions and harm the users. Sure, everything can be used in moderation, but are moderate users of these things the exception or the rule?

What is too much porn and how does it harm you?

Re: Be Good

#189

Post by billswift »

tungstenfurnace wrote: post #47
nostrademons wrote: post #21

Peter Drucker said much the same thing: profit is the cost of doing business, not the purpose . The true purpose of a business is to provide goods & services to its customers. The "profit motive" is essentially a check on the resources consumed by the business, to ensure that it's not spending resources inefficiently, much as PG mentions in the 2nd footnote. Up until the 1970s, it was common for corporations to be ma…

Yes, and looking at purpose another way: if something is worth doing it's worth doing at a profit, because non-profit enterprises are always underfunded.

A better way of looking at it, is if it can't earn a profit it isn't worth doing - because it isn't useful enough for people to pay for.

Re: Be Good

#190

Post by kleevr »

yters wrote: post #169
kleevr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think altruism is born the murkiest waters of self-interest. But discriptive psychalogical egoism skirts the the issue a bit and forks us into a long examination of the nature of the "soul". But, whether altruism is some measure "divine" (or symbolically derived), or born completely out of self-interest, there is a wide consensus on what it ought to look like. (egoism is an easy card play, we could pull…

I dunno. I think ideals exist, and that's what altruism is based on, at least the genuine kind. And I do think genuine altruism exists. However, I also agree that Nietszche's notion ressentiment also gets called altruism.

I always like the calculus on Aristotle's virtue ethics...
Post reply on HN