[mudetroit]

> Microsoft has always been a headache. Recently its been a tiny bit better, but they still are a for-profit company that needs to continue to make a profit.

Just want to point out that Github was also a "for-profit" company.

[zeveb]

I was never terribly fond of GitHub either. I disliked how they somehow became synonymous with open source, and I dislike how people have focused on GitHub rather than software freedom. I also wasn't a fan when they decided to step into politics.

I think self-hosting is a better choice for almost any organisation. Remember, 'the cloud' just means 'someone else's computer.'

[octorian]

The problem with self-hosting is a lack of visibility. Like Sourceforge before them, you basically need to host your project there for anyone else to notice it.

Of course you don't need to host it all there. Just mirror enough that it gets you the "visibility", while keeping everything else on your own servers.

Then again, there's inertia. And inertia always wins.

[quickben]

The interesting bit is that is about to get tested out with GitHub. Yes, of course, Skype target audience was network locked and not that savvy, but, the open source community does seem a tad bit different breed.

[Aeolun]

I think the difference is between 'constructive' and 'destructive' for-profit companies.

[manigandham]

Microsoft is one of the most valuable companies on the planet because it is destructive? What’s that even mean?

[trose]

Microsoft makes all of it's money from PC sales and software licensing.

Meanwhile, they basically invented the "buy your competitor and tank their business" strategy. That's probably what this person is referring to.

[manigandham]

That doesn't make sense. If they buy the competitor, why would they tank the business which is now their own instead of gaining the combined revenue and market share?

"Buy and trash competitor" isn't a real strategy. When an acquisition fails, it's usually poor management or vision, or just a lack of synergy in the first place, not a purposeful tanking.

[SuddsMcDuff]

If Microsoft makes all their money from PC sales and software licensing, how is Github a competitor?

How does tanking Github allow Microsoft to sell more copies of Office?

[erikpukinskis]

There are two ways you create value for your employer:

1) creating value for their customers

2) maintaining the moat that prevents other people from creating value for their customers

The former is constructive, the latter is destructive. They both contribute revenue.

I haven’t done a full scale analysis of Microsoft, but the argument I would entertain is that Microsoft primarily sells tools for companies and individuals to built moats around themselves.

[manigandham]

#2 doesn't work unless you can also provide that value, so it is still constructive. You cant keep customers from using something if you have no such offering yourself to compete with.

[erikpukinskis]

Sure you can, why not? They will just work around deficiencies in your product as long as switching is even more painful.

[hinkley]

Who taught you that high market cap equals nondestructive? Go ask for your money back.

[manigandham]

What is the point of your comment? Care to explain what "destructive" means then since you're claiming to be better educated about this?

[hinkley]

No, I don’t care to explain. You opened with incredulity, an Appeal to Accoplishment/Authority, and now you are playing Prove Me Wrong/Teach Me.

[manigandham]

The original poster claimed it was "destructive" which doesn't logically sound like a way to build a lot of value, especially to be one of the top 10 companies on the planet, at the very least without clarity on what they are supposedly destroying. From the votes and other comments, I'm clearly not alone in wondering. You had your chance to enlighten us but went with juvenile retorts instead, ultimately only really proving that you don't know either. Thanks for playing I guess.

[0xFFC]

Exactly. It seems people around here are brainwashed. They are incapable of thinking objectively. You are so naive if you think Apple or Google or Facebook are not for profit!

Look at how much data Google has on every single one of us.

MSFT is going through a cultural change right now. It was the case for Google, to make money the had to be an advocate of open source. They didn't do that because they are good-hearted or anything else. It is just like geopolitics. Hit your opponent from the weakest point. And Microsoft weak point was open source at that time.

But the point is neither MSFT, Apple, Google or Facebook does not care about developers or customers. They want to make money. This is nature of corporations. Instead of nagging and being short-sighted we should embrace open source collaboration by MSFT and should hit them when they don't respect customers.

[pizza234]

The expression "for profit" is indeed inappropriate.

However, with the understanding of what the poster meant, it does make sense. We're talking about the company whose racket produces 10$ avg for each Android phone sold.

I'm talking especially about those FAT patents, which are against the spirit of patenting (independently of being in favour or against patents).

I understand that big companies are big and internally conflicting, however, I see a radical conflict of interest between their newfounded open source responsibility and their ruthless business attitude.

[bitmapbrother]

>Look at how much data Google has on every single one of us.

What about the data Microsoft has on you? Their Windows 10 OS is basically a data funnel right to their servers. They operate a tracking based search engine that also builds profiles on people. And they have data centers in China that are run by Chinese state run companies.

[0xFFC]

That is the point. There is no good or bad in this competition. Everybody is in it for itself/themselves. We should think about our strategies.

>And they have data centers in China that are run by Chinese state run companies.

BTW, tbh I don't trust data centers in USA any more than data centers in China.