Is Apple or Microsoft more evil?

[Judge]

Yes, that's true. I freely admit that I'm not as informed as I could be on the subject, but I do know that Nintendo has consistently refused to make any sort of progress, which is especially horrible given that it's a giant in the video game industry.

I'm a bit embarrassed for IBM to be in that "yellow" tier. There are so many other corporations in "green" with far less market capitalization. Sony's market cap is so much less compared to IBM's. And Nintendo's appears to be only somewhat less than Sony's.

Market capitalization: The total dollar market value of all of a company's outstanding shares. The more you have, the greater potential for corporate altruism and goodwill.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[apt-get]

I'm not a huge fan of either company as I tend to avoid proprietary software products when I can. I use neither OS X or Windows on my laptop. That being said, I would much rather give my money to Apple than to Microsoft if I had to choose. I'm not really OK with Microsoft choosing to break standards for their own corporate profit, nor am OK with being expected to use their office suite because everyone else does. Microsoft is all about money, and that's fine, but as a consumer, I don't feel particularly inclined to support their business. At least Apple makes high quality Unix machines.

 

[Judge]

I have no love of proprietary anything, although I under$tand why it'$ done. Apple or Microsoft are no exceptions to this sort of thing.

Transitioning to 64-bit operating systems and software has terribly limited the use of older software on newer operating systems. In Microsoft's case they have opened the door to people like me from leaving them entirely. There's no clear advantage I see in remaining with them.

Since I'm forced to start from scratch, I'd be more inclined to go to Apple or even open source operating systems. I don't work for employers dependent on any particular platform any more, so I'm apt to look at what works the best for the lowest price that still resembles a conventional desktop operating system. Linux may be in the lead over all the main competitors. I'd think their systems would run quite well on the PC I built last year.

 

[The Penguin]

apt-get would be the first person did write something on topic on what this post is about.

 

[Flinty]

The evil is less about which company has it and more with the laws governing publicly traded companies.

Ethical behaviour is discouraged in publicly traded companies due to court precedents that allow shareholders to fire the Boards of Directors of companies that don't do everything possible to make as much money as possible right this second. Thinking five years down the road is discouraged, as is having call centers in a First World country when India or Bangladesh or Zimbabwe would do just as well.

So Apple and Microsoft are in theory amoral. If good people own enough shares, then good things happen from those companies.

 

[Randomperson]

Apple. They take low-mid range intel hardware, put it in beige, slap a couple stickers on it, and sell it at a 200-500% markup with a worse operating system then windows.

 

[AsheSkyler]

I don't have many dealings with Apple. One company I worked it used some big Macs (nothing to do with hamburgers) for the graphic designer to use. While the OS looked okay enough, I will say that Apple doesn't know squat about making a mouse!

I was raised on Microsoft, and I have many dislikes of their products. Especially the product keys and the ensuing rules! Build three computers to use in your house? Buy three product keys because it's illegal to use one for the other three you own. Hard drive crash because hardware isn't infallible and that dumb recovery partition went with it? Tough poopy, peel off that key sticker from the back and buy a new one, or you're a bad pirate! And what the heck is with this awful design they've picked for their software? This "ribbon" garbage? Why are there buttons everywhere now? Where'd the menus go!? I switched to OpenOffice shortly after Office 2007 came out, I couldn't navigate anything! At least OpenOffice still has menus! Bonus perk it can save files in Microsoft format for those that like to shell out $100+ for Office.

I like Linux. I'll be glad when more things work on Linux OSs. The only reason I still have Windows on my computer is because my favorite games and programs don't work on my Linux copies yet.

 

[Randomperson]

I'm not a huge fan of either company as I tend to avoid proprietary software products when I can. I use neither OS X or Windows on my laptop. That being said, I would much rather give my money to Apple than to Microsoft if I had to choose. I'm not really OK with Microsoft choosing to break standards for their own corporate profit, nor am OK with being expected to use their office suite because everyone else does. Microsoft is all about money, and that's fine, but as a consumer, I don't feel particularly inclined to support their business. At least Apple makes high quality Unix machines.

Apple stopped making hardware when they stopped making macintosh's, anything called an apple mac these days is really "intel inside", the mother board, the cpu, the gpus, are all pc hardware. So that apple made unix box, is actually made by intel.

 

[StephF]

I don't like Apple, I feel they treat their users as their property and try to lock them into their own products. I don't dislike Microsoft, I just feel the company is just incompetent when it comes to writing
efficient secure code that isn't overburdened by unnecessary bloat.

 

[Judge]

I don't like Apple, I feel they treat their users as their property and try to lock them into their own products. I don't dislike Microsoft, I just feel the company is just incompetent when it comes to writing efficient secure code that isn't overburdened by unnecessary bloat.

Now that's getting at the heart of the matter. But this doesn't make either corporation "evil" per se. It just makes them undesirable from a consumer's perspective.

That we seek value in both quality and affordability. Not simply the option of one or the other.

 

[The Penguin]

Now that's getting at the heart of the matter. But this doesn't make either corporation "evil" per se. It just makes them undesirable from a consumer's perspective.

That we seek value in both quality and affordability. Not simply the option of one or the other.

Though I don't mean to take the word evil literally. Though I still having trouble with the choose of words for this post, there some other people do get it what I'm trying to say.

 

[Judge]

Though I don't mean to take the word evil literally. Though I still having trouble with the choose of words for this post, there some other people do get it what I'm trying to say.

I think the terms "ethical and unethical business practices relative to consumers" might have been closer to what you were looking for. Even then such concerns remain terribly complicated for many reasons and variables pertaining to multi-billion dollar publicly-traded corporations.

Using adjectives like "good and evil" opened doors simply going too many directions. But you've made your point. Don't sweat it.

 

[The Penguin]

I think the terms "ethical and unethical business practices relative to consumers" might have been closer to what you were looking for. Even then such concerns remain terribly complicated for many reasons and variables pertaining to multi-billion dollar publicly-traded corporations.

Using adjectives like "good and evil" opened doors simply going too many directions. But you've made your point. Don't sweat it.

I guess if you can't follow what I'm looking for. If you look at all the posts that I have liked for this tread, it would be responses something like those people gave. If I notice someone is off topic for a tread I created, I will let that person know.

 

[Judge]

I guess if you can't follow what I'm looking for. If you look at all the posts that I have liked for this tread, it would be responses something like those people gave. If I notice someone is off topic for a tread I created, I will let that person know.

That's actually a responsibility of the mods. Not original posters of a thread. Discussions can go many directions and still be within the parameters of a topic. That's a reality of most any forum.

Personally I haven't seen any posts within this thread that couldn't apply. But it's always going to be helpful on the outset if you are precise about what you want to discuss. Even then though, you're going to have to tolerate the possibility of tangent discussions emerging.

 

[The Penguin]

That's actually a responsibility of the mods. Not original posters of a thread. Discussions can go many directions and still be within the parameters of a topic. That's a reality of most any forum.

Personally I haven't seen any posts within this thread that couldn't apply. But it's always going to be helpful on the outset if you are precise about what you want to discuss.

I don't see this getting anywhere. We not coming an agreement with anything and your writing things that I already know. Though I know your not a mind reader.

You got me thinking some more and I realized my post would be more effective if it was at a place with the right audience.

Now, I don't have any issues with debates but I get very annoyed people being off topic. Though then again the issue could arise with my writing skills which may create these problems.

 

[Judge]

Though then again the issue could arise with my writing skills which may create these problems.

Could be. Where you went wrong was in using the word "evil" in your title.

It's an adjective that can inherently mean many things to many people.

And you compounded it by associating it with multi-billion dollar corporations. A subject in itself which implies many things to many people based on political and economic bias.

If you are looking for a precise discussion, you have to be prepared to create a precise title. Even then, you have to compromise here to get what you want. Above all, you have to respect the reality that others have very different frames of reference from yourself.

 

[The Penguin]

Yes.

Where you went wrong was in using the word "evil" in your title.

It's an adjective that can inherently mean many things to many people.

And you compounded it by associating it with multi-billion dollar corporations. A subject in itself which implies many things to many people based on political and economic bias.

If you are looking for a precise discussion, be prepared to create a precise title. You have to compromise here to get what you want.

But like I said, it not that simple to do this having an learning disability. Anyways lets close this discussion. I'm getting very annoyed.

 

[Judge]

But like I said, it not that simple to do this having an learning disability. Anyways lets close this discussion. I'm getting very annoyed.

For us to recognize your limitations, you have to recognize the limitations- and differences of others. It's always going to go both ways.

 

[Shiznown]

Neither corporation is evil, we live in a capitalist world where the law of supply and demand is 'god'. Both corporations feed the need that is generated at grass root level through marketing. Marketing is driven by the peoples choice as a feed back loop, as such there is no evil.

Well yes and no. We really don't have a free market, thanks to big government regulations that favor big corporations over smaller companies. What we do have in the US anyway is this sort of fascist state.

 

[Ereth]

Well yes and no. We really don't have a free market, thanks to big government regulations that favor big corporations over smaller companies. What we do have in the US anyway is this sort of fascist state.

You're confusing fascism with mixed capitalism.