Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 18:42 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Thread beginning with comment 274023
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2006-09-01
Why would it be unfair to consider a company's larger strategic position when assessing a particular tactical move?
Microsoft's history demonstrates a certain goal and their strategies support that goal. I think it's perfectly reasonable that in the face of that strategy, the smaller individual, and sometimes seemingly unrelated moves get scrutinized more closely.
And just to ensure I get modded down, here's a political analogy: Can you really say that George W. Bush performed his national guard duty, in the face of all the over whelming evidence, just because one of the single piece of that evidence turned out to be a mistake (even though it was never denied)?
Should we ignore the bigger picture because of a smudge?