5 ms·
Successful to the shareholders, not the users.
by felipelemos 3y ago
Successful to the shareholders, not the users.
- kevincox 3y agoMicrosoft's goal is to make the shareholders money. So that it success to it.
- pkulak 3y agoAnd success or not has nothing to do with OP's point.
- kortilla 3y agoThat’s what makes a successful company though.
- pjerem 3y agoWell, by that reasoning, US are a successful country. But when you are not the shareholder but the user / citizen, you have the right to decide what "successful" means to you.
- hollerith 3y agoThe US is a successful country: try to invade us and see :) Or try to outspend us :)
- forgingahead 3y agoHave you looked at your Southern border recently?
- rat9988 3y agoCitizens should be shareholders, but let's not stretch the analogy.
- aylmao 3y agoDepends on your definition of success, but yes a lot of companies aim to maximize the monetary gain of shareholders
- JamesBarney 3y agoNo one has been forcing any of the users to give them money. The users are giving them money because they get value out of purchasing their products.
- ClimaxGravely 3y agoI feel a little forced but for context I currently work in the games industry.
- usr1106 3y agoNot true. As a Linux user I have many times been forced to give them money for software I delete as my first step on a new PC.
- akerl_ 3y agoCan you give an example? Generally speaking, when you buy hardware with bundled software, the hardware is cheaper because the software company is paying the hardware vendor to bundle, effectively subsidizing some of your cost.