WillReadmore
Gold Member
- Nov 25, 2013
- 1,330
- 110
No, you charged MS of this. And, it is NOT how MS finds engineers for its product creation groups.Now you're REALLY going nutty. MS is a software company. They really only make hardware as a side issue.You're right about Open Architecture.No, that is absolutely ridiculous.MS, IBM and Oracle address issues that are quite different from those of the general public and their desire to play, their general technical inability, their acceptance of close systems rather than the absolute requirement for openness, etc.
And, trying to pin your charge on these companies is absolutely absurd.
As I am in the field for over 30 years, I have followed their endeavors since the early 80s.
They have each failed to enter the world of Open Architecture because they went H1-B crazy and H1-Bs rarely have the skills to accomplish anything.
Apple didn't go "open architecture" either.
The point I was making is that Apple has consistently kept their solutions far more closed than has Microsoft.
Remember that it was about a decade before Apple even so much as allowed a third party to sell a printer. And, Microsoft was putting their entire system on the computers built by anyone in the world, while adding different networking solutions, and other major extensions.
Apple was considered more "usable" because they stayed closed - there just were far fewer options. There was THE printer. There was THE monitor. There was THE keyboard. There was THE network system. There was THE storage device. All hardware was made by ONE company. For a long time there was even a lock so you couldn't even see inside the box!!! Apple considered ONE user for a particular systenm as opposed to the issues and advantages seen in a corporate environment where there is corporate management of information, including information hardware (management that Apple needed to ignore in favor of simplicity for owner-maintained configurations).
And, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with visas.
It has to do with significant differences in the perceived needs of specific and varied markets.
What I meant to convey was Apple went Open in terms of portability...phones and tablets.
MS, IBM and Oracle tried to do the same and failed miserably.
I laughed my arse off when Steve Balmer introduced to the world the...LAPTOP.
Except the idiot called it Surface not realizing that Apple, HP, Dell, etc... beat him to the punch by a good couple of years.
That's what you get when you surround yourself with people who don't even know how to surf the web and see what's going on.
In terms of software development it has EVERYTHING to do with visas.
If you have an iPhone you'll see how often that Multi-National Corporate Apps have to be downloaded because of yet ANOTHER error.
If these coders knew what they were doing they wouldn't have to fix things like memory leaks every day.
Companies like Apple and Google get it right by spending the money and getting the talent.
Others simply reply on what they sold 30-40 years ago and keep pushing supposed "upgrades" of their software.
Heck, I can't see any reason to upgrade the MS Office since around 2000; there's not ONE feature that would make my life simpler.
It's ironic that nobody under the age of 40 ever heard of IBM or Oracle.
The fact of the matter is that FAR more computers run MS software than Apple software - noting that phones aren't in that category.
And, that has NOTHING to do with being "open". So, don't make excuses.
On phones, Apple has been on the CLOSED side of the scale, with it's requirements for Apple ownership of code written by application creators. MS has ALWAYS been MORE open - both in terms of business practices and technology. Period. As has Google with Android.
In fact, third parties have windows source code. How many corporations have the source code for Apple's various operating systems?
Once again, you're just plain confused about the business world of computers and software.
And, as for management, the hiring and compensation of MS employees is determined by managers who don't even have access to the immigration status of employees - it's just not their job. There job is to create software and evaluate the engineers in their group, promoting those who are good and firing those who aren't. So, suggesting visa holders are paid less is just plain stupid. That would require a complete reworking of how compensation is determined.
If you want to critique MS on their foray into the cell phone market, fine. But, attaching that to visa issues is absolute and total BS.
Human resources is COMPLETLEY responsible for which resumes are used and which are tossed in the trash.
They have their orders from the CEO who absolutely insists all IT jobs are to be given SOLELY to H1-Bs.
If you don't know this you haven't been reading your financial publications since 2004.
Microsoft sends engineers to universities to interview candidates who apply for interviews through the placement offices of those universities. The theory is that engineers can recognize smart engineers better than some HR person. The universities they go to are usually in America or Canada (where there are a couple really good places for finding engineers due to their education method).
Those engineers bring back the people they want to bring back.
Sending a resume to the MS HR office in hopes of getting an engineering position is going to be a dead failure. Their HR gets tens of thousands of resumes. And, that's just not how the vast majority of engineers are found.