Don’t be a hater

For years now I keep saying that people always hate the No1 and favor the underdog instead — no matter what or who the underdog is. They are always sympathetic to whatever underdog they choose to support. It’s in the very nature of the less-intelligent, miserable people to defend themselves this way — because they think that the No2 will support their interests as it has nothing to lose, but only to gain. They feel more comfortable in this situation and they will fight with all their strength to bring down the current No1. And when the No2 becomes No1, they will fight it too because they can’t get over their FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt in their little world).

In the tech industry in particular, IBM was the big brother in the ’80s. Microsoft followed in the mid-90s. What all these anti-MS opinions over the years failed to explain though is why the transformation of a normal company to an evil company. What changed? Is a XX manager who is responsible for a YY decision now suddenly deemed “evil” just because the company makes more money, while himself might not? And why these people only see “companies” and not individuals? In fact, most of the decisions and things that people hate about Microsoft were decided/executed by lower-level managers rather than Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer themselves. And yet, Gates and Ballmer get all the hate, and Microsoft as a whole too! How can you deem a 40,000 employee company “evil”? They are not evil. They are simply professionals who are trying to do and secure their jobs in an unforgiving market place. But people hate them for simply being successful and they make a big deal about every little thing they do. Sure, sometimes Microsoft screws up too, but this doesn’t make them “evil”. They are simply a successful corporation which must protects its investors. If you don’t like that, write to your congressman to change the US economic system, don’t just hate Microsoft like a crybaby.

Even the iPod franchise is being attacked lately just because it has become so successful!

And now… Yes, you guessed it, it’s Google’s turn! The ever beloved, innovative company that geeks respected for the last 5 years has become so big and powerful, that people are turning their backs to. In the last 3 days I read five new and completely independent articles online about how evil Google is or has become, and that the real enemy was never Microsoft, but Google! Good PR started going sour for Google early this year but in the last few days it is has become more prominent. Now we will have blog posts, comments and articles against every little fart Google will be letting go — just like Microsoft before it. Google will be thinking twice to even breath, because it will be criticized for having a bad breath. Soon enough the hatred towards Google will be an epidemic — just like it was for MS.

It’s pathetic how this world thinks and reacts to other people’s success. It just makes you to not want to win the lottery.

12 Comments »

thebluesgnr wrote on December 30th, 2006 at 2:47 AM PST:

I don’t know if you’re saying companies can’t be evil or if you’re complaining that people change their minds about companies once they become succesful.

Companies CAN be evil. Like you said, companies are people, and some people are evil. When people do unethical and immoral acts for their companies then their companies become “evil” to the public eye. Microsoft is a perfect example of this, as they’ve done several unethical as well as illegal things.

The “evil” thing can also be a result of manipulation instead of evil doing. For example, Apple’s famous commercial is a clear example of them trying to convince people that the big IBM was an evil company and the small Apple was the cool one. Apple was clearly manipulating people with their marketing campaign, and it worked.

Google is a special case because they were the ones that created the whole “Do no evil” thing. At the same time it helped them become popular with certain crowds, it also puts every small bad thing they do under the spotlight.

One final point I’d like to raise is that companies have no excuse to be evil. You seem to think they should do anything to make profit, but that’s simply not how the legal system of most countries work. Companies are required to be “good” just like individuals are.

If companies bend the law to do unethical things I see nothing wrong with people that speak against that. You should too, instead of accepting a “free for all” society. We have laws for a reason.


l3v1 wrote on December 30th, 2006 at 3:55 AM PST:

“It just makes you to not want to win the lottery.”

Nah, if I’d win, I wouldn’t give a damn, anybody would be free to hate me. If they knew I won, that is, which they wouldn’t. There aren’t many things that would make me not want to win a lottery, it’s pretty hard to refuse lots of free money :)


Stefan Constantinescu wrote on December 30th, 2006 at 4:51 AM PST:

The one fallacy I see in your argument is there is no current underdog in search.

Yahoo? hardly
Live? … not really

That new wikipedia search engine maybe … but personally I think Yahoo is going to reinvent itself in 2007. They’ve been acquiring all the right companies. Google uses cold dead computer algorithms to display search results. yahoo and the new wikipedia search engine, will use the power of the people.

i can’t predict the future, but google put themselves into this situation. their algorithms may be amazing now, but they can’t match people.


stormrider wrote on December 30th, 2006 at 5:33 AM PST:

excellent post!!!


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on December 30th, 2006 at 6:05 AM PST:

>The one fallacy I see in your argument is there is no current underdog in search.

You are mistaken. Google is not perceived as a search company in this “I hate you” race. It is not about Y! being a better or worse search engine. It’s about Google having a lot of different projects that puts to death a lot of existing companies, including MS and a number of online calendaring websites, and now with youtube etc. Google is not hated for its search, but for being successfull in general in a lot of different things.


mikesum32 wrote on December 30th, 2006 at 7:06 AM PST:

The real reason these companies are hated is because they abuse the power they have(MS), or the promises they have made (google).

It’s not unwarranted. Of course the biggest companies do get the most of the chiding because everyone knows about them and is looking at them for wrongdoing.

Less people would care if some software company no one has ever heard of did something wrong.

Now off to bed.


Luis wrote on December 30th, 2006 at 9:26 AM PST:

I mostly agree, but I’m not sure if from your post I should understand that the opposite position is ok? I mean, it looks a bit like it’s mediocre to hate the successful and praise the “not so successful”, but it’s brilliant to love the number 1 and kick the loser’s ass.

I think this is not what you mean, and probably you’ll agree with me that it’s equally pathetic that people will hate you for winning the lottery or that they will love you for the same reason. For me both things are the same. I don’t see any difference in hating Microsoft and loving Apple or the opposite.


moleskine wrote on December 30th, 2006 at 11:54 AM PST:

You are right that life is too short for hatred. This is the important point.

However, I think you’re off the mark with the rest. What we are talking about is power. Some crave it; most fear it. And there is something about the tribal apes we call human beings which almost guarantees that power will be abused in the absence of strong checks on it. This is what folks instinctively dislike about Microsoft and they are quite correct. They don’t like the abuse of monopoly at one end and they don’t like the strutting and boasting and crass imposition of US cultural values at the micro end either. If Google ever reaches similar heights, I doubt it will be very different.

I think one could also say that while the original joint stock corporation has evolved over a couple of centuries into today’s multinational megacorp, ways of containing and controlling the joint stock corporation have not evolved at the same pace.


Rick wrote on January 1st, 2007 at 10:16 AM PST:

It’s just little fanboy kiddies who think they are part of some “cause”. In the real world, they are laughed at and ridiculed for being the idiots they are.

The interesting thing is that the average Slashdotter has grown up just a little bit, while the average OSNews poster continues to devolve into something barely sentient


silpol wrote on January 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 AM PST:

mmmm… you omit (probably unintentionally) that usually #1 had gone way to so called success with lots of ignorance and stepping on somebodies heads… and yes, companies ARE evil as soon as they get successful, and especially public ones – they has got to the point where they has reached some current-limit, yet shareholder’s greed pushing it even further, in turn pushing managers to do soemthing they didn’t do before, – voila, you have some ill-consieved motivation born… I see it here and there :-/


Ricardo Ramalho wrote on January 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 AM PST:

Hating the “top dog” is simply human nature. Maybe you like Microsoft but you hate Coca-Cola Company ou some other big company, or politic, or country.

I call it Human Nature. We are what we are…


Rick wrote on January 4th, 2007 at 1:02 AM PST:

silpol is just regurgitating the same old braindead leftist diatribe that we’ve heard thousands times before. Companies and/or corporations are not sentient beings, and thus are incapable of being “evil”.


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.