Comments on: Microsoft vs Originality

By: Teddy X

Teddy X — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:50:40 +0000

“M$ is an illegal monopoly that has been stealing ideas from other companies for years. That alone makes it worthy of our contempt.”

This Adam King guy is really a typical fanboi, when lusers are out of ideas and can’t defend their shit, they just go on with the old boring “M$ is an illegall monopoly bla bla bla bla bla”. Don’t you know the definition of monopoly, if Microsoft is a monopolist why is there existing of Apple and your pathetic Linux? Just typical.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:52:40 +0000

“Microsoft dumps billions into PR just to try and improve/overcome that very thing you claim they don’t care about- their image. BuckMighty, you’re an idiot.”

So does Apple.

Apple also put a fair bit of money into openly attacking Microsoft, they make official press-releases saying how crap Microsoft is, even Mac OSX contains digs at Microsoft (lol SMB boxen and Samba shares show up as blue screened PCs lol)

By: Adam King

Adam King — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:18:49 +0000

Hatetards arguing that originality is somehow irrelevant will not change the fact that M$ is an illegal monopoly that has been stealing ideas from other companies for years. That alone makes it worthy of our contempt.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:03:01 +0000

Microsoft dumps billions into PR just to try and improve/overcome that very thing you claim they don’t care about- their image. BuckMighty, you’re an idiot.

By: BuckMighty

BuckMighty — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:26:58 +0000

What’s odd is that I don’t think that anybody gives a shit…I mean the companies. They don’t care if you like what they do or not. They just do it. So, think MS stole something, think that they bought something, think that Gates is this or that….who gives a fuk? No one. Least of all them. They aren’t in business to be original…not one iota.

By: Roogie

Roogie — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 05:06:18 +0000

I ask people this: do you care if your car of choice copied the concept of a vehicle mounted air conditioning unit from Nash?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:02:11 +0000

I’m just enjoying seeing all you people arguing with what I said, even though I agree. My point wasn’t really that Piestar Dude was wrong, but that there are reasons why the distortion exists in the first place. But hey, don’t let me stop the flaming.

By: Frak

Frak — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:35:46 +0000

“Microsoft buy most of their ideas, they don’t create them.”

They should be like Adobe, or Apple, or, oh wait…

Seriously, Microsoft is cherry-picked. Every large company buys other companies; it’s just how companies function. When a company has an idea that extends a preexisting product, buy the company and improve the product. Sell it for a profit. Microsoft is always in the bad on these things. I can’t think of anything Adobe has now that wasn’t bought. Flash? Well, for one, that was bought from Macromedia, and two, they bought it from FutureSplash. Photoshop? Bought from a student named Thomas Knoll back in the 80′s. Shockwave? Bought from Netscape. ColdFusion? Allaire and then Macormedia. After Effects? Bought from Company of Science and Arts (cosa.com). InDesign? Purchased from Aldus. Adobe Soundbooth and Audition? Purchased from Syntrillium. PDF? Ding ding ding, created by Adobe, but was proprietary. Acrobat was originally a pay-to-use product. Illustrator and Premiere were made by them, thankfully. Though, their largest products were created by 3rd party studios.

But what about Apple? Mac OS X? Based on NeXTSTEP from NeXT. Safari? The browser itself is original, but the underlying engine is based heavily on KHTML. iTunes? SoundJam MP. Garageband/Logic? Purchased from Emagic. Final Cut Pro? Originally KeyGrip, purchased from Macromedia. LiveType? Prismo Graphics. I could go on and on, in fact, I could probably find code that relates to other products within the Mac OS 7 source code. Apple has a long history of buying out companies to get a hold of their products. Last, but not least, the iPod could have been influenced by this man: http://www.kanekramer.com/

Innovation is being able to take many ideas and cleverly turn them into a heavily marketable product.

By: TM Repository

TM Repository — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:27:29 +0000

Kerberos, I'd like to donate the Piestar logo I created on the TM Repository to you if you want it. Logo

By: Kerberos

Kerberos — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:43:21 +0000

“Microsoft buy most of their ideas, they don’t create them.”

I don’t think that is strictly speaking true. I think it is because they try to get a leg-up in new markets by buying an existing company and pumping money into it. If you are as large as Microsoft you want to diversify as much as possible, rather than put all your eggs in one basket. It’s inherintly sensible to aim for longevity when you have that much cash. Microsofts two main product lines are almost entirely it’s own work (Windows and Office). Apple and Google are certainly well known now for buying up useful companies. Why is it only bad when MS do it?

Lets not forget Microsoft invented XMLHTTPRequest – which is pretty much the foundation of this whole Web 2.0 thing. I don’t think Google invented search and I really don’t think Apple invented the smartphone.

Essentially people have this ‘cool to hate MS’ vibe going and will use any flimsy old excuse. Just look at Slashdot for a living example.