The Next Microsoft • Hacker News Board

Re: The Next Microsoft

#301

Post by Spearchucker » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 2:17 PM UTC

cdf wrote: post #284

wilfra wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startups create the future, not companies like IBM. In the context of my comment, people in the orbit of world-changing startups are the ones that matter. You make some interesting points though. Good post.

I am obviously biased, but I am terrified, TERRIFIED, if a company with Microsoft's history has a say in delivering the future. I dont want that future. Microsoft has a very very long way to rehabilitate their image for their long history of bad behaviour.

Not biased so much, maybe, but definitely subjective.

I have more faith in Microsoft than I do in any other big tech company. It's easy to forget that any commercial organisation's mission is to make money, which makes it inherently self-serving.

Microsoft, Red Hat, Google, Apple, Oracle, Facebook and so on all exist to make their shareholders rich. And yet we seem to think that they exist to make cool products, or to offer services we might find useful. Or to support us in any way. Not so.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#302

Post by sequoia » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 2:53 PM UTC

I really liked this stuff. I am commenting just to mention that my "free association" response to the two slashes together was "[nazi] SS." I think it looks nice but that just popped into my head. Kudos on the awesome rebranding proposal in any case!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_faQqAqCMoKc/TDxWZNPnD2I/AAAAAAAABE...

Re: The Next Microsoft

#303

Post by loup-vaillant » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 4:04 PM UTC

wilfra wrote: post #273

josteink wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unwilling to speculate or suggest that Paul and the unknown moderators act on content or people in the name of financial benefit Hence why I qualified that statement with "if I didn't know better". :) I guess the cult of Apple is just particularly strong here. Arguing against current Apple cult is sort of like arguing for Microsoft in Linux IRC-channels back in the days. You just cannot expect fair treatment of…

One way to look at it is that arguing against the 'hivemind' is not tolerated. Having run several communities myself, I offer the counterpoint: People arguing against the crowd, even when the crowd is wrong, usually manifests itself as what appears to moderators to be trolling. When action is taken it is far less often about whether or not the content is accurate and far more often (i.e. nearly always) about whether…

Are you saying that group-think is definitely unavoidable? If whatever opinion a given community forms cannot be challenged ever, then it's bound to be plagued by affective death spirals[1], evaporative cooling[2], and, well, significant errors in its vision of the world.

I'm not saying your counterpoint is wrong. I'm saying I want it to be wrong. Because if you're right, even LessWrong and RationalWiki are hopeless.

[1]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Affective_death_spiral

[2]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli...

Re: The Next Microsoft

#304

Post by tissarah » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 4:12 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #212

jiggity wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this design makes you uneasy and go "But that's not Microsoft!", slap your gut and tell it to listen because that's just the branding talking. Take a step back and recognize that EVERY emotion you feel about Microsoft is arbitrary. Branding is just the mental handle we use to talk about the automatic emotions we get. That is the tough part about branding: it happens unconsciously. It is that surge of instantaneous…

Careful, it's not just about branding. You have to live the brand idea as well, it has to perspire in your products, down to the tiniest detail. Anyone can hire a new brand team, pour millions in TV ads and new copies, but that won't change squat until the products themselves follow the very same idea. At a company scale such as Microsoft's, true rebranding will take significant time and resources, or they will have…

Isn't it true that strong vision that people have a true emotional response to and believe in can move 100k people (or even more)?

Maybe an expensive "true rebrand" is a way to make a promise to your people and help build trust in your new direction. Also making it so visible and present can help remind people of this direction when they make every day decisions.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#305

Post by roc » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

noblethrasher wrote: post #186

roc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Ballmer was aiming for the next IBM, he'd have spun off Windows Phone as IBM sold off its PC business. They wouldn't be buying companies and pouring resources into it and pissing off the OEMs by pouring resources into Surface. And if they were just shooting for Enterprise++, keeping Windows Phone and Surface to keep enterprise device sales under their umbrella, they'd be spinning off the XBox and consumer media pr…

Isn't Microsoft more profitable than IBM? http://ycharts.com/companies/IBM/profit_margin http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/profit_margin

And how much more profitable would they be without things like their Entertainment division, Bing, Ad company acquisitions, etc?

Re: The Next Microsoft

#306

Post by tenaciousV » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 4:23 PM UTC

I would hope Microsoft(M) would listen and eliminate some features. Even M is not about simplicity it can learn from others how to do it. Bravo, great work.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#307

Post by genwin » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 5:24 PM UTC

cdf wrote: post #284

wilfra wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startups create the future, not companies like IBM. In the context of my comment, people in the orbit of world-changing startups are the ones that matter. You make some interesting points though. Good post.

I am obviously biased, but I am terrified, TERRIFIED, if a company with Microsoft's history has a say in delivering the future. I dont want that future. Microsoft has a very very long way to rehabilitate their image for their long history of bad behaviour.

As long as they are forced to adhere to the laws of a democracy, including antitrust laws, I wouldn't be concerned. One could argue that they skated around antitrust in the US, which was concerning until they broke under their own weight.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#308

Post by mattdeboard » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 7:46 PM UTC

jsprink_banned wrote: post #272

fbailey wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, totally wrong. I'm in Germany I know at least 20 people who read HN. I know a lot more who have heard of Dustin Curtis and the AA redesign. You don't understand the global impact of HN and a networked society.

The alternative and far more logical explanation, of course, is that you surround yourself with and network with the kind of people who read HN. I do understand the global impact of a forum such as this, and I certainly understand the ramifications of a networked society. I suggest, however, that the network in this case is far smaller than supposed. The next example is dangerous to pull off as the topic is polarizin…

You're really upset about being banned, aren't you?

Re: The Next Microsoft

#309

Post by drostie » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 8:27 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #303

wilfra wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to look at it is that arguing against the 'hivemind' is not tolerated. Having run several communities myself, I offer the counterpoint: People arguing against the crowd, even when the crowd is wrong, usually manifests itself as what appears to moderators to be trolling. When action is taken it is far less often about whether or not the content is accurate and far more often (i.e. nearly always) about whether…

Are you saying that group-think is definitely unavoidable? If whatever opinion a given community forms cannot be challenged ever , then it's bound to be plagued by affective death spirals[1], evaporative cooling[2], and, well, significant errors in its vision of the world. I'm not saying your counterpoint is wrong. I'm saying I want it to be wrong. Because if you're right, even LessWrong and RationalWiki are hopeless…

If LessWrong is our touchstone then indeed some forms of group-think are presumably unavoidable. I mean, I'm working on a new religion; given only that knowledge and no actual content, can you guess how I'd be received by Less Wrongers? What if a postmodernist came by? An eugenicist? It is often easier to laugh with our community than to really try to see the world from the alternate perspective and really work out all the consequences from the different point of view, much less to find a genuine contradiction that would shake this speculative start.

However, even if a forum devoid of groupthink is unavoidable, I think an open forum is possible, though difficult. The key lesson which needs to be understood is that you are whole. In other words, most communication is about relaying some sort of point, transmitting some sort of information, making some sort of argument. But points don't matter -- you and I talking is what matters: true and authentic conversation. If people feel whole, then they can stop trying to show how awesome they are to others, and then we can keep a forum open to people who wildly disagree with us. I don't have to prove anything to anyone, thus I am free to respect others as human beings.

As you probably have guessed, this begins to overlap strongly with the aforementioned religious issues and I don't want to be preachy, so I will leave it at that rather than adding more exposition.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#310

Post by wilfra » Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 9:14 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #303

wilfra wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to look at it is that arguing against the 'hivemind' is not tolerated. Having run several communities myself, I offer the counterpoint: People arguing against the crowd, even when the crowd is wrong, usually manifests itself as what appears to moderators to be trolling. When action is taken it is far less often about whether or not the content is accurate and far more often (i.e. nearly always) about whether…

Are you saying that group-think is definitely unavoidable? If whatever opinion a given community forms cannot be challenged ever , then it's bound to be plagued by affective death spirals[1], evaporative cooling[2], and, well, significant errors in its vision of the world. I'm not saying your counterpoint is wrong. I'm saying I want it to be wrong. Because if you're right, even LessWrong and RationalWiki are hopeless…

Certainly not. There are issues where there are large groups of people on both sides of an issue, even here on HN. That is where the best discussion takes place.

What I'm saying is that wandering into a bar frequented by Dodger fans decked out in Giants gear and getting into a heated debate with the entire bar about which team has the best pitching staff, is not going to end well for you. Even though in this instance, you'd clearly be right (Giants staff > Dodgers staff).

The same applies to the internet.