| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Apple is vile, but Microsoft is dangerousApple is vile, but Microsoft is dangerousPosted Jan 12, 2008 19:24 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Microsoft's goals by man_ls Parent article: Why Microsoft Must Control One Laptop Per Child (Technocrat.net)
Apple is the most vile company in IT. No competition. Microsoft is not even close. It's the only company I know which can demand your soul in exchange to single song - quite literally (read the 20th item of the license and think about implications). But thankfully it only controls small part of the market - and I've avoided it so far (I don't have iPod or iPhone and while Mac looks good I've avoided it like a plague - exactly because I want to control my own destiny, not have Apple or Microsoft as it's master). Apple's recent expansion is quite worrysome, but it just has no degree of control Microsoft enjoys today: music and movies are downloadable for free and iTunes will never be able to compete with that, but it's hard to avoid .DOC and .XLS file nowadays. So while Apple is the most vile and repulsive company Microsoft is still the most dangerous one...
(Log in to post comments)
Apple is vile, but Microsoft is dangerous Posted Jan 13, 2008 1:02 UTC (Sun) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] One would think that such "omnipotence" clauses (as I call them) would be legally unenforceable with an unconscionability defense. Or, at least I personally hope such clauses get snuffed out by the courts! =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= IANAL, and I just learned that "unconscionability" is both (1) a legal term and (2) incorrectly reported as a misspelling by Firefox 2.0.0.11. :-)
|
|
||||||||||||