Just like today's "mean people" essay, PG was likely wrong in that essay as well. Firstly, regarding the "shadow that was cast", let's look at some data rather than rely on what "everyone knows", shall we? Here's a relevant paper that looks at some data (caveat - it only covers events up to 2000, but then that's the period PG talks about as well):
And of course Microsoft is not "dead" or "irrelevant" and does not produce "crappy software", as much as the Silicon Valley hive-mind would like to think so. This is trivially disproved by looking at 1) their revenues and 2) their ranking in the top brands worldwide over the last decade and a half.
You should read Microsoft's reply to the essay [0] which contains your arguments and PG's reply to it [1].
It's interesting to review claims from years ago and I think PG was largely right. Microsoft is not completely irrelevant (yet?) but they definitely lost the cultural war and moves like open sourcing .NET show that they want to join the old opponent's positions.
I'll add that I'm not sure if Microsoft's historical influence was evil. They prevented fragmentation and created a unified environment and probably enabled PC revolution.
Heh, I actually happen to like McDonalds! I think it has the best fast food you can get out there, especially for the price. Imagine that, people have opinions contrary to yours!
Now imagine something harder to believe: the vast majority of people have opinions contrary to yours.
Comments
Just like today's "mean people" essay, PG was likely wrong in that essay as well. Firstly, regarding the "shadow that was cast", let's look at some data rather than rely on what "everyone knows", shall we? Here's a relevant paper that looks at some data (caveat - it only covers events up to 2000, but then that's the period PG talks about as well):
"Did Microsoft Deter Software Innovation?", Josh Lerner, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269498
Spoiler: It follows Betteridge's Law.
And of course Microsoft is not "dead" or "irrelevant" and does not produce "crappy software", as much as the Silicon Valley hive-mind would like to think so. This is trivially disproved by looking at 1) their revenues and 2) their ranking in the top brands worldwide over the last decade and a half.
You should read Microsoft's reply to the essay [0] which contains your arguments and PG's reply to it [1].
It's interesting to review claims from years ago and I think PG was largely right. Microsoft is not completely irrelevant (yet?) but they definitely lost the cultural war and moves like open sourcing .NET show that they want to join the old opponent's positions.
I'll add that I'm not sure if Microsoft's historical influence was evil. They prevented fragmentation and created a unified environment and probably enabled PC revolution.
[0] http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2007/04/since... [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/cliffsnotes.html
Enjoy chowing down on McDonalds, because apparently, by your own measure, it's not crappy food.
Heh, I actually happen to like McDonalds! I think it has the best fast food you can get out there, especially for the price. Imagine that, people have opinions contrary to yours!
Now imagine something harder to believe: the vast majority of people have opinions contrary to yours.