Quite so Paul, Quite so.

Paul Krugman:

The point is that the quintessential business figures of the 80s weren’t creative entrepreneurs. They were big-corporation executives (Lee Iacocca) and takeover artists (Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky). The gazillionaires who started in garages came later.

Quite So.

 

 

7 thoughts on “Quite so Paul, Quite so.”

  1. Hewlett and Packard? Mind you, “quintessential” is a pretty malleable adjective. Could you call Warren Buffet “a creative entrepreneur”? Why not: every copycat adman and popstar considers himself “creative”.

  2. Microsoft and Apple were started in the 70s not the 80s. And if you think Microsoft are or have ever been creative, you are very much mistaken — the only thing they’ve ever been creative about is inventing new ways to lock people into their inferior products.

  3. @cabalamat: yeah, yeah, yeah, blah….

    locking people….inferior products….

    ….and bringing forward the adoption of computing into everyday society by years, by having the savvy that no one else had to put their product into a dominant position. Without Microsoft, whatever you think of their products (and the chattering classes love to hate Microsoft, just like they do American presidents) there’s a reasonable probability we’d be stuck in a world of $2000 computers with a choice of expensive, non-compatible operating systems, applications and protocols.

    If Microsoft are no good, the market will sort them out. “IT snobbery” won’t.

    Meantime, a vote of thanks from me to them for enabling – not necessarily inventing – many of the things I take for granted each day.

  4. Without Microsoft, whatever you think of their products (and the chattering classes love to hate Microsoft, just like they do American presidents) there’s a reasonable probability we’d be stuck in a world of $2000 computers with a choice of expensive, non-compatible operating systems, applications and protocols.

    All your assertions are wrong.

    1. Computers are cheap is because of Moore’s Law, not because of Microsoft. Computers would be just as cheap without MS.

    2. the operating system |I am using to type this on cost me £0, and is better in every way that Microsoft’s crap offerings, with the exception of compatibility…

    3. …the problem of incompatibility between operating systems is made worse, not better, by Microsoft, who deliberately choose to make their systems incompatible with others, in order to lock people in to their software.

    If Microsoft are no good, the market will sort them out.

    This might be true if there was a free market in computer software. However, in both the EU and USA there is no such market, because there are laws making it illegal to work around gratuitously incompatible data formats.

    “IT snobbery” won’t.

    It’s not about snobbery, retard. It’s about using what works. I am currently setting up a website which will eventually require a highly processor and bandwidth intensive server farm. I am naturally using the best software available to do this — since I don’t want to make things difficult for myself. I am not using Microsoft software anywhere in the system.

  5. It’s not about snobbery, retard. It’s about using what works.

    Quite so. For the majority, Microsoft does just fine, and we don’t need self-appointed techno-purist-snobs to dispense their questionable views on software and applications any more than we need fashion editors to tell us what to wear.

    So please, carry right along with your technically-superior but pain-in-the-ass minority-use operating system; you have my blessing 😀

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *