Microsoft is one of the most successful corporations in the world, and is widely considered to be undergoing a sort of renaissance under Nadella, so while the intent of this put-down is clear, its expression is pretty clumsy.
Couldn't you just say or link to something concrete to make your point instead? The cost problems of large American projects are incredibly well covered in the media; you're a trivial Google search away from lots of great material here.
It’s been unsuccessful at building high-quality, user-facing products. Which is where I was going with the analogy. The US makes plenty of money too, but falls short in building things you can point to.
I own an iPhone. It’s as buggy as Microsoft products. In the end, Microsoft products are Okay. The reason people criticize Microsoft is politics. First you decide which side is the right one (that’s easy, it’s Linux) and then you use Bad Faith to make the wrong side look as bad as possible.
I have no dislike of Microsoft as a company. But its products and its ability to execute suck. We deployed Office 365 at work and all the rewritten apps are total crap (Outlook, Teams, etc.) They can’t even manage to maintain their own browser engine, which is pathetic for such a large company. I have a surface Duo 2, which is a promising device that’s just a total disaster in execution. The Surface line is sometimes good, but the execution is so bad. They have no ability to sync up with Intel release cycles, so the hardware is perpetually six months to a year old when new surface models are released.
Can 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.
Couldn't you just say or link to something concrete to make your point instead? The cost problems of large American projects are incredibly well covered in the media; you're a trivial Google search away from lots of great material here.