why people are assuming this essay main points are wrong?
it's very correct.
Microsoft windows and office only make money with kickbacks to govt buyers. see the documentary on Microsoft and EU. lots of money is moving under tables.
azure is a joke that mostly gets sales based on price for people who need to buy a cloud just because. in this regard they are a walking corpse like ibm was in the 90s.
then the money came from xbox, which they tried to kill several times and only got market share because they sold at loss early just because that's what they do without even thinking. Salesforce, and LinkedIn, which they bought after they were monopolies already (and owners only sold exactly because of the fear of saying no, which the article paints very well) and couldn't run to the ground no matter how bad and abusive it got. and lately openai related stock memes despite being the least protected player (as in no hand in chip design).
what exactly paints the article as wrong? they just got a few luck hits on the way down.
By that metric Uber and Tesla are the better companies on the history of the universe.
Wake me up when that speculation translates to profit that is not just fraud of funneling investor money from AI companies they are on the board back into azure profit center.
> Salesforce, and LinkedIn, which they bought after they were monopolies already (and owners only sold exactly because of the fear of saying no, which the article paints very well)
you are right. i don't even know which one i was thinking when my finger decided to type salesforce. well. I only know enough about MS for the occasional checks to keep it into the not buy pile.
it's very correct.
Microsoft windows and office only make money with kickbacks to govt buyers. see the documentary on Microsoft and EU. lots of money is moving under tables.
azure is a joke that mostly gets sales based on price for people who need to buy a cloud just because. in this regard they are a walking corpse like ibm was in the 90s.
then the money came from xbox, which they tried to kill several times and only got market share because they sold at loss early just because that's what they do without even thinking. Salesforce, and LinkedIn, which they bought after they were monopolies already (and owners only sold exactly because of the fear of saying no, which the article paints very well) and couldn't run to the ground no matter how bad and abusive it got. and lately openai related stock memes despite being the least protected player (as in no hand in chip design).
what exactly paints the article as wrong? they just got a few luck hits on the way down.