ECM said:
fordy said:
ECM said:
enditall727 said:
@ thread title
That's what they all say..
Lucifer supposedly said the same thing aswell
User was banned for this, and this post.
yo_john117
|
Pardon me, but how is this a bannable comment?
He's correct: people throughout history have justified their evil, malicious, and stupid things under the guise of "oh, well, we never meant to do any harm..." when it's pretty clear that, even if that were true, it's a feeble defense for their actions. This is the source of the aphorism "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" only I don't think anyone believes--for a minute--that MS had good intentions, at least as defined from the consmer's point-of-view, just like the story of Lucifer, where his motivation was to set himself up as god and to hell with everyone else.
(In this analogy, the consumer is god and the loyal angels, and Lucifer is MS' management and shareholders.)
Would you, perhaps, prefer "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Would that be acceptable? And if so, why is that OK but his is not?
|
Care to elaborate? I know what MS did would be classed as shortsighted, but I wouldn't go as far to say they had nothing but bad intentions to the consumer about this. If that were the case, then people would not have gotten any of the benefits of DRM, only the bad points...
|
I define "good intentions" as good for the consumer--not what's good for MS, and I find it very dificult ot believe that *anyone* really believes what MS was going to do was a boon--or even a minor benefit--to the consumer.
WItness the one MS exec--who was summarily fired--for taking shots at rural America--did that sound consumer-friendly to you?
At best, it was clueless--at worst, it was malicious, but MS isn't so stupid that they woudln't have known, internally, that what they planned was going to be embraced by any stretch of the imaginatoin.
|
I'd say that their original idea probably had potential, but as it was worked out in more detail, it was getting way too complicated. That's where they should have stopped, but they kept going for some reason.
So not being firmly reliant on physical media is not a benefit? I'd say in a time where companies are trying to find ways to get into the digital distribution market while not burning their bridges on the physical media market, and make them both integrate seamlessly, I'd say this was a logically sound solution to such a problem, even if it didn't take some important factors into consideration...
