> hey wield huge power and can snuff out entire startup sectors with loss-leading products.
More importantly, they're becoming complacent and lazy, using their legal and financial clout to kill competition, not product improvements.
This is why China is so scary - their companies have started being very competitive to US behemoths which have been buying/killing their competition for decade(s) now.
Microsoft is maybe the only big tech organization that feels like they're still actively trying to out-innovate their size. They invested in OpenAI (not acquired; invested) then weeks later made substantial improvements to Bing. They made a concept hardware device 10 years ago (the Courier), then finally made it real (it's not great, but that's beside the point). They're possibly the single largest funder of insanely critical open source software projects; Kubernetes, TypeScript, VSCode, etc. They acquired Github then practically speaking left them alone to continue being a really high quality product, while simultaneously investing in internal direct competitors (Azure DevOps). They released Loop a few weeks ago; now they're going after Notion.
You can argue that they're leveraging M365 and their enterprise contracts to out-innovate smaller competitors like Slack, Notion, etc. Yeah, ok; I don't love it. But I really can't help but feel: At least they're doing it. At least they're releasing new products that don't totally suck. I literally can't think of one thing Google has released in the past five years that left a fingerprint on the world. Facebook is a similar story. Apple is a very different company, but its not dissimilar: M1 was incredible, but if you put that aside (because, really, the past three years has been "M1 Catchup" for them) the iPhone is the same thing it was four years ago, the iPad is the same, the Watch is the same, the software is overwhelmingly the same, I guess they have a new Savings Account (when companies start running out of ideas to innovate, they turn to financial engineering).
Microsoft is a cool company, and I'll die on that hill. I'm not happy with everything they do. I think the entire Windows division leadership needs to be gutted and replaced, and they need to think long and hard about what Windows looks like for the next 10 years (and maybe they're already doing that!). But putting that aside, even considering Microsoft's very light anti-competitiveness, I'd take them over the rest of big tech nowadays. They're mostly just lame ducks.
However sceptical you may be about it, Meta deserves credit for at least trying to do something new with VR and Metaverse. We will see Apple follow suit in the next few months.
I really feel actually that Google is the outlier here in underperforming their innovation quota. It seems to me they hired a bunch of high level managers who somehow got envy of Ballmer-era Microsoft and tried to re-invent it at Google. I can't understand how or why this seems like a good strategy but it's all I can make of the fact that have withdrawn from every innovative product they were interested in.
> Microsoft is a cool company, and I'll die on that hill.
"cool" companies stagnate. Remember, Microsoft was that "cool" company who left us with rottin IE6 until competition came.
So let me channel Ballmer, leader of said cool company: COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION.
That makes our world better.
Microsoft tried moving away from legacy Windows with UWP. The long term plan was probably for UWP to replace core Windows with that.
Windows will be around for at least a few more decades until everything is a web app. But leadership under Nadella knows the clock is ticking and that's why they've moved their focus to making Office 365 (Office/OneDrive/Teams) and Azure their bread and butter.
> I think the entire Windows division leadership needs to be gutted and replaced, and they need to think long and hard about what Windows looks like for the next 10 years (and maybe they're already doing that!).
I think the reason Windows is getting crappier is the same reason that Microsoft is doing everything else in your list - they're transitioning to an SaaS/services company and leveraging their existing strengths/monopolies to elbow their way into various SaaS markets (see: Microsoft Teams shipping "free" with O365). Changing windows to respect users again would require changing the whole corporate culture you are praising, not just the Windows division. In my opinion what's happening to Windows is entirely consistent with everything else Microsoft is doing, not some aberration.
I think "innovate" is a very strong word for what Microsoft is doing with Slack and Notion. The absolute most charitable I could be is that these applications are just functional enough to fit into the same niche, but more realistically they are minimum effort bundled me-toos to entice penny wise and pound foolish managers with control over the IT budget.
Comments about the quality of the offerings aside, what do these applications objectively bring to the table that merits calling them innovative?
> This is why China is so scary - their companies have started being very competitive
When it comes to tech regulation the Chinese authorities have at least a 2-3 year advantage against the US/UK, notice how the likes of Alibaba and Tencent have been brought (relatively) down compared to what was expected of them 5 years ago.
Was this proven in one way or another? You speak of it as it's 100% sure it happened, but I haven't seen anything but rumors about this, you wouldn't spread hearsay on HN right?
Given that the CCP frequently "disappears" its nationals that it has some problem with, I think giving the CCP the benefit of the doubt is unwise and harmful. Given it's demonstrated pattern over many years, I think we can safely assume malintent.
Nothing is 100% sure, anyway, and the CCP does these things in secret to provide it deniability.
The methods definitely aren’t great but the effects may be. Although some of the goals the government has are not really about the populous and more about limiting private sector power vis a vis the government and not the populous.
One idea: PG&E has killed lots of California residents through neglect, not to mention all the damage caused by fires that were their responsibility. Someone ought to pay for that other than the tax payers, if only to make an example.
Let’s get to the bottom of the barrel, why not abolish all modern technology which has a will independent of humanity and leads to all those bad outcomes?
Did he do something criminal or was this a bad accident? Would you prefer if your government could just decide who to toss in jail (which is what the CCP does). I'd prefer I had the right to a trial. Also a judiciary that is separate to from the rest of government to protect the population from politically motivated prosecutions.
In general I don't have much sympathy for the CEOs of multi-multi-billion-dollar companies, if at all. And considering the current dire political and economic climate, including in many Western countries, I think that that view of mine is shared by many.
People like paganel are why you should keep an eye on politics even if you hate everyone or are basically satisfied with the status quo. There’re always those who has no problem with political violence as long as the violent are on their side. Be watchful.
I’m going to quote Chateaubriand, talking about the French of his time: “the French instinctively go where the power is; they don’t love freedom at all; equality alone is their only idol. And equality and despotism have secret connections between them. Seen under that light, Napoleon’s rule drew its power from the very hearts of the French people” (badly translated by me on a small iPhone while reading Compagnon’s The Antimoderns)
As such, it isn’t me or people thinking like me that you should fear (i.e. people who quote Chateaubriand to a total techie stranger on the web), you should fear the “quintessential” French (or Westerner, in today’s age) that goes “where the power is” by instinct (on this La Boetie was right centuries ago). That is if you people really care about your freedom.
A billionaire is still a human being with the rights and dignity that come with being a person. It's very concerning to see someone essentially say "if you have x amount of money then I don't really care if you are kidnapped or killed." I don't particularly care for that level of wealth either, but I want laws to pass to remedy the funneling of money upward. I don't want to see them killed.
Countries (or their leadership) can be good and bad at the same time, for different reasons.
China - Awful way of treating people, illusion of democracy, but at least they reign in huge companies.
US - Democracy but companies wield huge power. Doesn't seem to care about people's health much.
Many European countries - Huge focus on caring about public healthcare, companies under control but innovation stifled a lot of times
Same goes for basically every country, and it's important to be able to see the good and bad at the same time, to have a bit perspective. No country is 100% good, nor is any country 100% bad.
You make a good point, that is which institution has more legitimacy inside a de facto authoritarian state? The state itself and its authoritarian leaders? Or a private corporation that got so big as to "submerge" the state? (for the latter case think Samsung and South Korea, if South Korea had kept its 1970s-1980s state-policies).
No, let's all celebrate market competition, the most critical part of a functioning economy. Chinese companies aren't competitive due to CCP or authoritarian regime, but they're competitive because they're the underdogs on western markets and can't just curbstomp the competition with lawyers and DRM like US corporations can in their markets.
So they're forced to compete on price, quality and features (to some extent - it's not like they're not getting daddy Xis helping hand). Just like companies in other healthy capitalist markets which haven't completely broke due to consolidation.
PRC "progress" was a form of control. CCP basically handed everyone "rings of power" to rule over them. All their wealth is meant to be kept inside because that's control of the nation. Imagine if they didn't have currency controls, every rich person there would dump the Yuan for other currencies and overseas real estate. Meanwhile, all the inflated properties in the PRC will drop significantly. Unrest or instability is not good for CCP.
Which is all besides the point - the point is: you need market competition for capitalism to work. As soon as competition is broken, your economy starts stagnating and other incumbents start eating away at it.
> Chinese companies aren't competitive due to CCP or authoritarian regime, but they're competitive because they're the underdogs on western markets
China has been accused multiple times of assisting their companies with absurd amounts of government subsidies (leading to at least Europe and the US enacting counter tariffs), as well as using government and private industrial espionage and hacking campaigns to clone Western products.
Taking off my US citizen hat for a moment, this is a valid critique. Free trade, unencumbered by government subsidies, is mostly an illusion. The global system of government is anarchy, and the powerful nations hold the weaker nations to strict rules while they quietly seize any and all advantages.
More importantly, they're becoming complacent and lazy, using their legal and financial clout to kill competition, not product improvements.
This is why China is so scary - their companies have started being very competitive to US behemoths which have been buying/killing their competition for decade(s) now.