zlacker

>>mfwit+(OP)
Windows is just full of hostile, anti-user patterns these days. I've considered building a windows box just to have a gaming rig multiple times over the last few years, but every time an article like this or their crusade against Chrome reminds me that Bill Gates is still the same anti-trust monster he was in the 90s.

>>frob+Z1
Is Bill Gates still involved with Microsoft, I thought he retired to run his foundation?

>>ration+M6
He's completely gone from Microsoft. To invoke Gates now on a anti-Microsoft screed would be missing the point. If anyone has beef with Microsoft about Windows, their ire is better directed at Panos Panay and Satya Nadella.

>>kjells+k8
Eventually, only the owners are responsible. Every second they don't kick the managers that implement this crap to the curb is a moral failure on their part.

Gates owns 100x more shares than Nadella - about 1% of all shares - and thus has 100x the responsibility.

They are both guilty of greed and disrespecting their customers through their actions, or their willful or negligent ignorance and inaction.

I don't know how they can live with this, they are already rich, why not try to be better even if you earn less money in the short term?

Disrespecting your customers will get you nowhere in the long term.

>>737373+em
Public companies are out for one thing, and one thing only.

Shareholder returns.

It has nothing to do with CEOs "already being rich", their job is literally to run the company properly so that the shareholders make more money.

Like it or not, that's how it is. Now, if this "crap" actually hurts the brand and the bottom line, they shouldn't implement it. If they are seeing more profits, and not many complaints, it's likely it will stay.

Moral faiure does not come into play.