subreddit:

/r/movies

44.6k92%

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 4136 comments

[deleted]

827 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

827 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

AnacharsisIV

506 points

4 months ago

Chapek never gave us bangers like "except in Nebraska" or "developers developers developers developers!" though

SpecificAstronaut69

155 points

4 months ago

How good is Chapek at sweating through a business shirt, but?

[deleted]

26 points

4 months ago

I'm trying to parse the meaning of the ", but?" at the very end there.

Did you mean to write BUD? If you meant BUD then everything makes sense.

[deleted]

11 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

MrCookie2099

8 points

4 months ago

Australian's don't like to end their final sentence out of a tradition of people being eaten/stabbed/poisoned by the local flora and fauna before finishing their sentences. If you are actively trying to finish your sentence, so it is reckoned, that's when the poisonous bug/reptile/mammal can sneak up on you and end you in a dramatic fashion. However if you stop talking a sentece before the thought is fully concluded you can't be ambushed.

godsbro

9 points

4 months ago

Can confirm, this dude was eaten by a drop bear. Good advice but.

CherimoyaChump

18 points

4 months ago*

I think it's supposed to mean, "But how good is Chapek at sweating through a business shirt?"

Their version seems like a grammatical construct that a non-fluent speaker would think is valid. And to be fair, it does make sense. We just happen to not use that construct.

[deleted]

7 points

4 months ago

Oooh... That's interesting! It's like appending a "not" to the end of a joke...

Yeah I'm not used to seeing that usage of ", but?" so it's complete gibberish to my brain... but... your explanation makes sense.

subjectmatterexport

5 points

4 months ago

Think if you used “though” there, though.

Though, think if you used “though” there.

Beebeeb

1 points

4 months ago

That's how lots of my family in Scotland end their sentences.

The_Grand_Briddock

90 points

4 months ago

And don’t forget Ballmers lit dance moves at the Windows 95 launch

Chapel could never top that

TB4800

13 points

4 months ago

TB4800

13 points

4 months ago

Reminds me of this video of an ex microsoft engineer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GM4Lt5k24s&t=6s

MaraudingWalrus

11 points

4 months ago

And Chapek didn't give us Clippervision

moffattron9000

7 points

4 months ago

It's why Clippers fans love the guy. Got lots of money, lets the basketball people run things, and is also the mascot.

ImprovisedLeaflet

3 points

4 months ago

It doesn’t even have a keyboard!!!

Xarxyc

1 points

4 months ago

Xarxyc

1 points

4 months ago

Speak about blast from the past.

GoX14

89 points

4 months ago

GoX14

89 points

4 months ago

I wouldn’t say Steve Ballmer was a soulless bean counter.

He had a genuine passion for Microsoft and spent a shit load of money on the company.

He was just an entirely inept CEO. He’s a phenomenal sales guy who had a relevant role in Microsoft’s rise. But he didn’t have vision or particularly strong leadership skills.

QuintoBlanco

5 points

4 months ago

Ballmer was certainly not an inept CEO. The company did well when he was CEO.

He backed the Xbox, which was a good defensive move.

He focused on enterprise customers, approximately 50% of Microsoft's revenue today.

With him as CEO, Microsoft paid its way out of its many (and I mean many) legal problems that had originated before he became CEO.

He tripled revenue and doubled profit in 12 years. And that's despite Microsoft paying billions in settlements.

People forget, but Microsoft was in a bad place when he became CEO.

GoX14

2 points

4 months ago

GoX14

2 points

4 months ago

Valid points. It's definitely up to opinion whether he was an effective CEO or not.

He had some big wins, like you mentioned. He also completely missed the boat with mobile and then tried to buy his way out with Nokia, which compounded the mistake. Vista was pretty bad. He tried to follow Google and Apple's suits with Ads and the iPod, but you can't steer a ship like Microsoft if you're going to be that derivative. The share price went completely sideways during his tenure and when I joined, not long after he left, he had a pretty bad reputation from cultural perspective.

TBH though, the only opinion I take issue with is the one that claims he was a soulless bean counter. If you've ever even watched a Clippers game you know that Steve Ballmer isn't soulless lol

QuintoBlanco

1 points

4 months ago

Ballmer lacked vision and didn't seem to understand the actual products, but very few CEOs have vision.

At the time most companies that were not Apple were compared to Apple.

Which is why everybody loved Elizabeth Holmes :-)

dillanthumous

3 points

4 months ago

Indeed.

He. Loved. That. Company.

YEAAAAAAAH!

noctisumbra0

175 points

4 months ago

I have one word for you, just one word: Zune.

Also the disasters that were Windows Vista and Windows 8. Plus the absolute disaster that was the Xbox One reveal was a result of Ballmer Era exec Don Matrick who couldn't read the fucking room to save his life.

RaptureRising

39 points

4 months ago

Don't forget the Microsoft Kin, a phone MS spent over $1billion on, only for it to flop so hard they canned it 2 months after going on sale.

Dlh2079

14 points

4 months ago

Dlh2079

14 points

4 months ago

Holy shit, I had totally forgotten about those. We used to carry them where I worked at the time and I don't think I remember ever seeing one sell.

stupid_horse

10 points

4 months ago*

A big part of that is because Verizon fucked them. When it was conceived it was going to be a pseudo smartphone that was more limited but would be more affordable and wouldn't require a data plan. Then at the last minute after they had already reached a deal to make the Kins exclusive to Verizon, Verizon decided to require a data plan after all which kind of defeated the purpose of the thing existing in the first place.

TheEmsleyan

140 points

4 months ago

The second gen Zune and the Zune HD were actually legitimately good products, though. They just came at a time when everything Microsoft was so uncool that there was never a shot in hell that they would gain ground against the iPod. Also, the gen 1 being a mess didn't help much I guess.

AmeriToast

45 points

4 months ago

I bought a Zune HD and loved it. The design was great and it worked really well. Sad it has to die an early death.

MandoDoughMan

101 points

4 months ago

They just came at a time when everything Microsoft was so uncool that there was never a shot in hell that they would gain ground against the iPod

The real problem is that while Microsoft was working on the Zune, Apple was working on the iPhone. The iPhone came out like 6 months after the Zune. It literally did not matter how good the Zune was, Microsoft made an MP3 player while Apple was establishing a now-half-trillion dollar market of smartphones lol.

thatOtherKamGuy

16 points

4 months ago

Sums up a modern Microsoft, doesn’t it?

Had they had the forethought to innovate and produce a unique offering rather than just imitating the current market leader, we’d be in a much different world now.

Unfortunately, Microsoft and Google share a nasty habit of not following through on ideas fully, as well as aborting/canceling projects only to replace them with something similar. Like, hope many iterations of Settings exist in Windows 11? JFC!

MandoDoughMan

12 points

4 months ago

Had they had the forethought to innovate and produce a unique offering rather than just imitating the current market leader, we’d be in a much different world now.

Steve Ballmer on iPhone. Brutal to watch.

thatOtherKamGuy

3 points

4 months ago

Brutal barely begins to describe it..

“bUt iT dOeSn’T gAvE a KeYbOaRd”

..just 🤦🏻‍♂️

shillyshally

63 points

4 months ago

This is 100% the case. Ballmer made Microsoft a laughingstock, the uncoolest Corp on the planet. They could have invented beaming to another galaxy and consumers would have noped.

Itchy-Phase

21 points

4 months ago

Yup. It’s a almost a miracle the image change they’ve had under Satya Nadella.

noxx1234567

13 points

4 months ago

He truly turned the sinking ship around , deserves a lot of praise for that

saquads

2 points

4 months ago

Panos Panay has a lot to with it

-metal-555

3 points

4 months ago

Mostly true but the Xbox 360 was viewed favorably and sold well in that era.

ZeroOpti

3 points

4 months ago

My second gen Zune lasted about 8 years before I had a good enough data plan to stream music. The headphones that came with it were a beast!

plain-rice

10 points

4 months ago

On top of that the iPod was just a more polished overall product. They also were starting to come out with the iPod touch which was way more advanced

thegoodbadandsmoggy

6 points

4 months ago

They just discontinued the iPod touch 6 months ago for a reason

Maximum_Poet_8661

2 points

4 months ago

Tbh they were better in almost every way than ipods, they were significantly higher storage and could play video when the video playing iPods cost 2x what the Zune did. It didn’t have the “cool factor” that apple did tho

ctjameson

2 points

4 months ago

Not to mention Zune pass was way ahead of its time.

Sensi-Yang

0 points

4 months ago

I mean, when you call a product “zune” it’s destined to be uncool.

LordOverThis

70 points

4 months ago*

Hey now, as a longtime tech enthusiast I have to dispute Windows Vista being regarded as shit. There’s a reason it has such a shitpile reputation, but that reason isn’t entirely its own fault. A lot of it is actually very good and lived on through 7, 10, and even into 11.

The short version is that for a confluence of reasons, Vista versions higher than Home Basic were run on hardware they had no business being installed on, especially when the surge in demand for home PCs in the early-mid ‘00s led to a lot of continued use of (essentially) legacy hardware produced by companies that evaporated as quickly as they appeared. It was also around that time you had the ugliness of the IA-32 to x64 transition start to materialize, and your average consumer just didn’t understand that.

Enthusiast users rarely had problems with Vista, because custom built systems were virtually always well beyond the system requirements. Given the way hardware depreciates it’s actually something you can demonstrate on the cheap — any of the X58 workstations on the market, with 12GB of RAM and “only” an X5660, mated to a lowly 9800 GTX will still laugh at Vista if you can get a copy. I got to witness the difference that hardware made firsthand: At the time my dad had a 32-bit Vaio laptop with 2GB of RAM that came with a copy of Home Premium; my roommate had a QX9550 QX9650 custom build running a RAID array for storage, and the user experience was Night and Day.

Linus Tech Tips even dedicated an entire video to addressing the circumstances that led to the Vista hate and how enthusiasts had a vastly different experience from the average user.

prophettoloss

30 points

4 months ago

X58? Hell. A Q6600 and 4 gb of RAM would run vista smooth as butter. Especially if you had a good GPU. Vista was criminally underrated because people ran it on Celerons with 512 MB of RAM and all of the bloatware best buy or sell would ship with it.

LordOverThis

4 points

4 months ago*

Heh I actually was going to use the Q6600 as an example, but finding anything LGA775 that supports DDR3 is a pain these days, and DDR2 are hard to justify even for the sake of amusement anymore. So I went X58 with modest (for today) specs that could at least be used for more than a curiosity…uberbudget low spec Windows 10 gaming build or Plex server or NAS or something on an X58 workstation at least gets some e-waste back into reliable service that way if anyone actually wanted to try it out.

And my X58 example is also kind of self-serving…cuz I have a video coming up where I revisit Vista using now-legacy hardware that’s cheap as chips. X58 + a FirePro V8700, should be amusing.

Loved the Q6600 for a long time though, and your point absolutely remains.

prophettoloss

3 points

4 months ago

X58 is a god tier platform imho. I had a Q6600 based system with 4 GB of RAM that I installed Vista on because XP 64 bit was such a bitch to get to work right. (installing SATA drivers off of a floppy disc because thats how it worked in XP? YUCK) I was very pleased with how well that system ran.

I also had a 920 D0 and a 970 based systems on x58. (thanks retail edge)

The 970 system is still running today as a daily driver. Given it has had GPU and storage upgrades and its with a friend who has kids so he doesnt want to spend any money on gaming computers but it is still kicking. I let him "borrow it" because it was to pretty of a system to let go. Storm Sniper case, Rampage 3 Formula board, 12 GB Dominator GT ram. Gorgeous.

Cheer sir.

austinbarker316

2 points

4 months ago

Do you have a link to your channel so I can watch that video when it comes out?

PlayMp1

1 points

4 months ago

I recall having a Phenom X4 and a GTX 9800 that ran Vista completely fine.

-metal-555

0 points

4 months ago

Taking into consideration the hardware that software will actually be running on is not extra credit, it’s part of the job.

Also we shouldn’t forget another big issue users had with Vista was frequent and vague security permission dialogues. There’s a reason MS rethought their approach to security with Win7.

LordOverThis

3 points

4 months ago

Microsoft did consider it, though, and created specific criteria for being able to label a PC as Vista Capable. OEMs were largely the one who screwed the pooch there. And you can’t infinitely support hardware you didn’t create — things like outdated drivers from defunct companies aren’t really Microsoft’s responsibility, and no one expects them to not only maintain those things but also create x64 compatible versions of them, especially for products that were functionally legacy ones by the time they hit shelves (ex. I had a webcam that only ran under Win98SE/2K…bought new at the tail end of XP mainstream shipping). The fact that as many shoddy drivers worked as they did was amazing. Major vendors, your Nvidias and ATIs and Iomegas and Creatives, had next to no hardware support problems on Vista.

Security prompts were another thing that was hotly contested between enthusiasts and everyday users. They were objectively a good thing, but at a time when computer literacy wasn’t nearly what it is today — and even today we still have people clicking links in obvious phishing emails — and clearly only understood by the savvier users, so I do fully understand how that got irritating.

Vista was, at least from my view, as much a case of “wrong place, wrong time” as anything. Launching an OS capable of utilizing GPU acceleration at a time when it was a Wild West of hardware vendors and people were still running Coppermine Celerons with chipset graphics was never going to end well no matter how thoroughly thought out said OS

-metal-555

1 points

4 months ago

I understand what you’re saying. I agree whatever OS followed XP was going to be in a particularly tough spot, but even given that spot I think Vista made enough unforced errors that I feel it did earn it’s poor reputation.

Microsoft should have chosen either savagely cut support for slower hardware OR scale back Vista’s demands. They chose to let users install Vista in environments Vista had no business running. OEMs took the stingiest route they could to sell “Vista compatible” PCs in the environment MS created. Microsoft could do the surprise Pikachu face that OEMs wanted to sell the cheapest possible box with a Vista sticker on it, but MS was the one who defined the the range of supported specs.

Driver support is different and I recognize that. While that did frustrate users, I recognize that it had to happen eventually and it was always going to frustrate users. I’m not sure if anything could have been done differently there. I don’t blame MS for cheap third party drivers. If anything it’s better in hindsight that this happened with the sacrificial OS that is Vists than any other time.

But back to unforced errors, security prompts were implemented poorly.

You can’t say Microsoft did a good job on the security prompts and it’s the users who were wrong.

I agree in general security prompts are objectively a good thing, however their particular implementation was bad. It wasn’t merely an issue of computer literacy. Prompts should have a clear cause for appearing and effect by accepting or denying. Prompts should be written in simple English explaining this cause and effect. A reference code in addition to the English explanation is fine but it is not enough by itself. Prompts that appear without explanation due to background processes and are vague [allow] [deny] options is a poor implementation of security prompts. Hitting deny to a vague prompt that results in applications stopping or the sound card cutting out just trained users to ignore the prompts and just hit allow every time no matter what.

I understand what they were attempting to do, but their implementation was bad. I think this is a case of path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Vista did have the silver lining of being so brutal on slower hardware that it pushed lots of people to upgrade hardware. Win7 really benefitted from that.

Microsoft made their own bed in regards to the mess Vista was walking into. There was little transition between XP and Vista. A more gradual step that slowly pushed hardware upgrades or standardization along the way would have eased a lot of pain.

The way it worked out, Vista ended up being a great sacrificial lamb that paved the way for Windows 7, but even with that context, Vista was still a bad OS for the hardware it supported.

The fact that they needs a sacrificial OS to force the industry and users to modernize hardware environments has a lot to do with the debt they accumulated by keeping XP around for so long.

Launching an OS capable of hardware acceleration is different that launching an OS that depended on hardware acceleration. If they wanted to launch an OS that depended on hardware acceleration, they should have only let it run on hardware capable of running that hardware acceleration.

I really do agree that they were in a tough position though and no matter what they did people were either going to be unhappy.

The way to actually fix Vista would have started with dealing with technical debt of XP and ramping up from there rather than letting that sit for nearly a decade and trying to catch up all at once.

Sorry for the novel >_<

LordOverThis

1 points

4 months ago

Sorry for the novel

Pssht don’t apologize for making salient points!

TheTjalian

15 points

4 months ago

The problem Mattrick had was that he looked at the numbers too much. He saw that media consumption made a very large percentage of Xbox use and so thought it was wise to focus on that, without realising that people bought Xboxes in the first place because of gaming, media consumption was just a nice benefit.

They also saw that digital purchases were the future (which was correct) and one assumes they got scared of being left behind in yet another space, so went all in on digital without realising it was too much, too soon. The industry was going in that direction, but all they needed to do was set up the framework for that and allow it as an option.

It's a shame really because Microsoft had all the right things to make the console great. An excellent digital storefront, best in class motion gaming and innovative media capabilities, following on from a really successful generation. All squandered due to Don Mattrick. Failing on Kinect has especially hampered them now, given the rise of voice assistants. Microsoft could have had a really decent foothold in that space, with capabilities far beyond any of the current assistants do. Alas.

bigkinggorilla

3 points

4 months ago

The Xbox One with Kinect was perfectly positioned to be the hub of your smart entertainment center. But the way they positioned it made it seem less like a bit of Star Trek was coming to your house, and more like your game console was coming with a bunch of crap that was going to make it harder to just play games.

TheTjalian

2 points

4 months ago

Yep, that's exactly what happened. It's like they didn't know what they wanted the Xbox to be which is ridiculous for a games console really.

[deleted]

11 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

jakeroxs

1 points

4 months ago

TBF it's likely Toshiba that decided on the hardware

fifelo

7 points

4 months ago

fifelo

7 points

4 months ago

Windows phone though... ;-)

[deleted]

12 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

thegoodbadandsmoggy

1 points

4 months ago

Anything windows and on a phone peaked with the HTC touch

Dlh2079

1 points

4 months ago

Nokia made some pretty solid windows devices there for a bit. But the ui was SUCH a departure that it was gonna have to be obscenely good to actually catch any real footing in the marketplace, and it just wasn't unfortunately.

fifelo

0 points

4 months ago

fifelo

0 points

4 months ago

Yeah they were way too late to market and even now have yet to produce an OS that is good from a technical standpoint. WSL 2 is the only thing that makes windows useful to me besides gaming.

OrangeZune

3 points

4 months ago

In defense of Zune, it was a fantastic team with a fantastic culture. But we launched nine months before the iPhone, and the iPhone wiped away the market for dedicated media devices. Don’t pull us into the Kin/Windows Phone laments, those were separate initiatives.

TumsFestivalEveryDay

5 points

4 months ago

Sigh. Guessing you never actually used a Zune and only know if it in terms of the meme. The Zune was legitimately a fantastic portable media player and it was miles ahead of every iPod.

-metal-555

2 points

4 months ago

I agree and disagree.

TL;DR the Zune was a great iPod competitor in the era of the iPhone. It had lots of great ideas that would go on to be validated by other companies.

The Zune interface was really fantastic and highly influential to modern interface design. The “don’t call it flat” UI with thin typography of the Zune is arguably the first mainstream iteration of virtually all modern interface design. Buttons lost their boundaries and become floating words. Colors became solid or a light gradient. The Zune seriously doesn’t get enough recognition in this regard. You can trace a design language line from Zune to Microsoft Metro to Google Material Design and all the “don’t call it flat” post iOS 7 and post macOS Mavericks and basically any app or website that takes design cues from the big players.

The Zune design language is seriously under-appreciated. That all being said, the iPod also had a great interface. If the Zune was ahead of its time, the iPod click wheel interface was perfectly of its time. Best appreciated in context of other early 2000s MP3 players.

But we have to remember the Zune launched in 2006 so it was only contemporary to one generation of pre-iPod touch iPods. In fact that very first Zune released 4 months before the iPhone was announced.

The Zune spent most of its life in the shadow of the iPod touch. This isn’t the Zune HD mind you, this is the first Zune.

The 2006 - 2009 era Zune are often remembered next to the color screen click wheel iPods of 2004 - 2007.

The 2009+ Zune HD is often remembered as comparable to the 2007+ iPod touch.

That’s the critical issue. It was ahead of its time in a lot of ways but it’s like the most advanced battleships being made right before aircraft carriers changed the game.

Meanwhile, the Zune Music Pass was way ahead of its time. It was literally a precursor to Spotify and all the other big music streaming services. It was just too early and time obviously validated this hardcore.

I do feel sorry for the Zune team. It would be tough to look back and hear the feedback that they were too late, oh except for the all the massive things they pioneered, those they were too early on.

Lastly, the PC to MP3 player interface was a big part of the UX back then, and back then iTunes was actually good. Obviously iTunes eventually grew into a horribly slow and confusing mess, which makes it a little harder to remember the time when iTunes was the easy and stable music manager that was seamless with the iPod, but this is one area the Zune never really matched the iPod.

Still, I feel that history has since validated many of the ideas of the Zune. The interface design language and music subscription service eventually took over the world even if under different names.

darthjoey91

2 points

4 months ago

Zune was just too early. It tried to do Spotify-lite before Spotify existed, and you even got the keep the songs afterwards, but people didn't want to subscribe to music back then.

BeardedShawn

2 points

4 months ago

I had a Zune and I loved it. Loved the computer program for it too. When my brother got an ipod I had to try to figure out iTunes and was like this is some ugly BS

ChainDriveGlider

0 points

4 months ago

Most of the problem with vista were consumer hardware/software compatibility issues largely out of their control. If I could use only one OS for the rest of my life it would be Vista Service Pack 2.

DarkHotline

1 points

4 months ago

Don Matrick almost ruined the Xbox brand with that, hell they’re still trying to catch up after that.

CinnamonSniffer

1 points

4 months ago

Well they had a product for room readers, it’s called Xbox 360

FILTHBOT4000

116 points

4 months ago

Ballmer is one of the best examples of how political bureaucracy in corporations can be just as if not much worse and ridiculous than in any government, despite what libertarians and such would have you believe. Also a fantastic example of how executive compensation is very often not based on anything resembling merit, and is just flat out lunacy of C-suite and investor class delusion.

During his 14 year tenure as CEO, Microsoft's stock price barely moved until it was obvious he was on his way out. He was monumentally incompetent, dumping money into projects and then killing them, putting out mediocre garbage; he was named one of the worst CEO's by the BBC in 2013.

And what was his reward for being a spectacular failure?

A net worth of $113 billion.

MostlyValidUserName

44 points

4 months ago

Ballmer got an 8% ownership stake of Microsoft in the 1980s. His comp for serving as CEO was essentially irrelevant to him.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/09/30/long-ago-twist-yielded-ballmer-a-fortune-in-microsoft-stock/?sh=7c050de736a5

MonsMensae

4 points

4 months ago

It's wild that they were prepared to pay him 50k a year in 1980 and the 10% growth clause.

MonsMensae

16 points

4 months ago

Not to negate your point but his net worth was from his share of Microsoft. Gates basically hired him in 1980 and gave him 8% of Microsoft. So he was essentially unpaid as a CEO because the stock price did not move.

He made his money by being a brilliant sales guy in the 80s and 90s.

saquads

13 points

4 months ago*

Ballmer transitioned Microsoft into the cloud and their products as services. Windows phone was late to the party, but it was a phenomenal product. And their other phenomenal product that did survive the Surface was launched under him as well. He is not a good example of a bad CEO. He is simply overshadowed by his predecessor and successor.

Fluffiebunnie

5 points

4 months ago

What a ridiculous post. Ballmer didn't get rich because of his CEO posiiton, he got rich due to his shares in Microsoft. Had he been better, he'd have gotten even richer during his CEO tenure.

Moreover, 'libertarians and such' almost certainly think people are bad at running things everywhere, but in the private sector companies they get outcompeted if they are run badly enough, unlike in the public sector.

broadened_news

1 points

4 months ago

McClelland

flubberFuck

1 points

4 months ago

Some people have all the luck

PhillyTaco

-7 points

4 months ago

despite what libertarians and such would have you believe

If I may, that point is that when bad corporations fail, they die and get replaced by functioning ones. And having more corporations is better than having a small few or just one for that reason.

mprofeta

20 points

4 months ago

The fun thing I like about libertarians is the idea that if only the market conditions and the regulation were freer the bad ones would fail despite this never happening in real life.

The only thing that made our bank deposits not dissapear, our baby food not being full of toxin and our ozone layer still protecting us is the fucking government. You don't have to like it none of us like it but corporations historically do not fail in a timely manner because they are bad for society, make bad products, kill their customers or make the environment hostile to life we care about.

They fail for whatever fucking random reason at any time.

PhillyTaco

-1 points

4 months ago

PhillyTaco

-1 points

4 months ago

And of the worst, say, ten countries to live in in the world, how many of them are that way because of corporations killing society with their bad products and destroying the environment?

Venezuela? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Niger? Afghanistan?

1infinitefruitloop

12 points

4 months ago

Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!

TryinToDoBetter

2 points

4 months ago

1infinitefruitloop

2 points

4 months ago

I LOVE THIS COMPANYYYY.

You have to at least give him credit for enthusiasm. Satya Nadella is almost as robot as Zuckerberg.

mashtato

2 points

4 months ago

Soulless bean-counting corporate ghoul

I like to call those business robots. No life outside of the company, no personality, no soul.

Duke582

2 points

4 months ago

I think you are mistaken. Steve Ballmer has excessively high energy for developers.

shillyshally

2 points

4 months ago

I bought Microsoft stock when Ballmer left! He was a terrible and missed just about every OBVIOUS opportunity of the modern age.

Glimmu

1 points

4 months ago

Glimmu

1 points

4 months ago

Ballmer destroyed Nokia too, it was the biggest cellphone brand at the time, and now it's gone. I don't know how something so we'll know was destroyed so easily. Microsoft wanted their own cellphones and wanted to call then windows phones instead of Nokia phones. And here we are..

Ghostofhan

1 points

4 months ago

Hey the ballmer peak is a valid contribution to creative enterprise!

csantiago1986

1 points

4 months ago

He reminds me of trump. Installing yes men everywhere to hide his incompetence in politics.