This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Evil Corporations - (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, etc.)

edited October 2010 in Everything Else
As a person who follows tech news and keeps in touch with upcoming electronic advances, I've noticed that the common opinion is that companies like Microsoft and Apple are out to get us all. Chock it up to my youthful ignorance, but I don't quite understand how those types of companies are more evil than any other corporation, like Google. This opinion is so prevalent, I've began to adopt it as common knowledge, without fully internalizing the reasons behind it.

I understand that Microsoft overtook lesser-known software, and Apple constantly puts limits on their proprietary devices, but are these the only reasons that people are giving them the label of "Evil Corporation"?

Are there any other companies that would count as "evil"?
«1

Comments

  • Are there any other companies that would count as "evil"?
    Valve.
  • All Public companies fit the definition of "Evil" in my opinion, the whole idea of a public company where a CEO does anything that does not maximize profits in the SHORT term makes a public company do incredibly evil shit (or at least potentially evil). Personally I am a fan of the private companies that at least have a chance to do what they want (which could be for the betterment of society instead of the profit of it).

    Then again Non-profits are pretty much where it's at.
  • Profitable = Evil in the court of public opinion.
  • Profitable = Evil in the court of public opinion.
    I don't know, being part of a company that is public, we had a stockholder buy a large amount of the stock just to control the decision to buy this other company (I.E. kill the deal so he could more money in the short term). The CEO was livid but was told if he didn't kill the deal they would make a shadow board of directors....
  • edited October 2010
    Yeah, if you think about it, any for-profit endeavor is at least a tiny bit evil.

    Pretend we are kids trading baseball cards. We will only agree to trade if its a fair trade. If it's not a fair trade, then one of us is ripping off the other guy, and that's not cool. If you buy something at a store, you are paying more than what it cost. Unless it's a loss leader, you are getting ripped off on everything you buy that is generating profit for someone else. If you buy that logic, then all profit is evil regardless of what it took to get that profit.

    But in terms of companies that get a lot of profits without doing anything that generates nerd rage, there are plenty. The Italian guys who make Arduinos and the related companies like Adafruit and Sparkfun are all non-evil. etsy is pretty nice. The board game publishers that aren't Hasbro/WotC are pretty nice. The comic publishers that aren't Marvel/DC are mostly non-evil. All the video game makers that aren't Microsoft/Nintendo/Activision/EA/etc. are mostly not evil.

    Really what it comes down to is that a company that is small enough, or private enough, can control its entire self. Once a company is public, it will necessarily do things in the interest of profit that are going to be evil in the eyes of some or many. And any company that is too big becomes an organism in and of itself that is no longer entirely under complete control of any one person, so it becomes incredibly difficult to prevent evil from happening.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • I blame the humans.
  • I think that corporations can't be evil or good. They're amoral. Not IMmoral. Amoral. I think the problem is that currently, the corporate veil is so thick sometimes that people who do truly evil things get to blame the corporations they were working for, rather than taking responsibility for themselves.
  • Profit alone, no matter how large, is not enough to be considered "evil" in my book. There has to be some specific wrong beyond, affecting the bigger picture. Oracle, for example, has specific agendas that endanger the health of the open Internet. FOX engenders hatred and fear on the way to its profit.

    Profit alone is fine and dandy. Arbitrage is also fine. Direct societal or physical harm is not.
  • Profit alone, no matter how large, is not enough to be considered "evil" in my book.
    Logically yes, but most people aren't.
  • in terms of companies that get a lot of profits without doing anything that generates nerd rage, there are plenty. The Italian guys who make Arduinos and the related companies like Adafruit and Sparkfun are all non-evil. etsy is pretty nice. The board game publishers that aren't Hasbro/WotC are pretty nice. The comic publishers that aren't Marvel/DC are mostly non-evil. All the video game makers that aren't Microsoft/Nintendo/Activision/EA/etc. are mostly not evil.
    It's funny because you listed mainly all private companies.
    Profit alone, no matter how large, is not enough to be considered "evil" in my book. There has to be some specific wrong beyond, affecting the bigger picture. Oracle, for example, has specific agendas that endanger the health of the open Internet. FOX engenders hatred and fear on the way to its profit.
    I don't think anyone is saying Profits are "evil" it's always the how that is important.
  • edited October 2010
    What did Microsoft do, then and now, to warrant being called "evil"? I'm not an apologetic and I have a general idea, but I was wondering if anyone can help explain it to me in a bit better detail.
    Post edited by VentureJ on
  • Profitable = Evil in the court of public opinion.
    I reject this premise.
  • Profitable = Evil in the court of public opinion.
    I reject this premise.
    Go nuts, but I haven't really seen anything to convince me to think otherwise.
  • What did Microsoft do, then and now, to warrant being called "evil"? I'm not an apologetic and I have a general idea, but I was wondering if anyone can help explain it to me in a bit better detail.
    Go read some Slashdot from around 10 years ago. Apple was effectively dead. Linux was making a move. Microsoft had a near complete software monopoly on personal computing. They used that monopoly to stomp on everything open source as much as possible. Now it's hard to remember. They basically tightened their grip so much that all the systems slipped through their fingers.
  • What did Microsoft do, then and now, to warrant being called "evil"? I'm not an apologetic and I have a general idea, but I was wondering if anyone can help explain it to me in a bit better detail.
    Well, they tried to kill open source, repeatedly. They sleazed their way into bed with hardware venders, so that they could monopolize the OS market. Then they started overcharging for their shitty, bug-and-security-hole-ridden software, and providing essentially no support.
  • They basically tightened their grip so much that all the systems slipped through their fingers.
    Nice Star Wars reference right there.
  • edited October 2010
    Very clever, Google. Very clever indeed.
    Are there any other companies that would count as "evil"?
    Valve.
    Why is Valve evil?
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • Can't say I really blame them, it's what everybody does.
  • Very clever, Google. Very clever indeed.
    Are there any other companies that would count as "evil"?
    Valve.
    Why is Valve evil?
    Oh, I was listing one that wasn't evil.
  • Can't say I really blame them, it's what everybody does.
    Yea, that's cool when everyone's a Nazi and shipping the Jews to labor camp you'll go along with that because everyone's doing it, I guess :-p

    /Godwin!
  • Very clever, Google. Very clever indeed.
    Are there any other companies that would count as "evil"?
    Valve.
    Why is Valve evil?
    Oh, I was listing one that wasn't evil.
    I thought that's what happened.
  • Yea, that's cool when everyone's a Nazi and shipping the Jews to labor camp you'll go along with that because everyone's doing it, I guess :-p

    /Godwin!
    Cause that argument is totally relevant to the current situation.

    Come on that title is very misleading. It makes you think google is dodging $60B in taxes in the US, but in reality the sum total of everyone doing this is about $60B, which given the $3000B or so budget really isn't worth getting wound up over or called people the E word. The rules are what they are and they're just playing by them. It's not like they aren't paying any taxes like say Exxon Mobile.
  • This should be illegal.
  • Maybe you guys should add certain Wall street banks that took government funds and used them to buy interest bearing US Treasure products, effectively selling our own money back to us at an interest rate after grabbing us by the balls and screaming "OMFG WE'RE TOO BIG TO FAIL, WE WILL END YOUR PROSPERITY!!!!". Just my thoughts anyway.
  • Thisshould be illegal.
    Then make it illegal. Doing taxes is all about working the system.
    Maybe you guys should add certain Wall street banks that took government funds and used them to buy interest bearing US Treasure products, effectively selling our own money back to us at an interest rate after grabbing us by the balls and screaming "OMFG WE'RE TOO BIG TO FAIL, WE WILL END YOUR PROSPERITY!!!!". Just my thoughts anyway.
    Some people abused it, but I think the bailout was positive overall.
  • TARP netted something like an 8% return on investment. I'd call that a success.
  • TARP netted something like an 8% return on investment. I'd call that a success.
    Ah yes, that little fact that almost everyone ignores, that most of the money has been paid back with interest.
  • TARP netted something like an 8% return on investment. I'd call that a success.
    Ah yes, that little fact that almost everyone ignores, that most of the money has been paid back with interest.
    Should the final Bush year numbers be adjust since the money has been paid back? Do the Obama deficit numbers include tha paid back money? If TARP money is removed from both budgets how do the numbers look?
Sign In or Register to comment.