lemm.ee

2 points

7 months ago

Yea but like, their competitors, when it comes to operating systems are Apple, which isn’t anywhere near small enough to be obtainable by anyone and Linux and Linux-Derivatives, which are also unobtainable due to their open source nature.

report

[ - ]

FoolishOwl@social.coop

2 points

7 months ago

@accideath The point isn’t whether Microsoft will reach that end. The point is that like all capitalist enterprises it will forever strive to do so.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

7 months ago

Not all of them. Only the big and successful ones

report

[ - ]

FoolishOwl@social.coop

2 points

7 months ago

@accideath All of them. That is the definition of a capitalist enterprise.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

7 months ago

Not every larger company is automatically evil, just because they exist within a capitalist market. A lot of them are, sure. At least to some extent. But there still are privately owned enterprises that do have a conscience.

Also, calling them “capitalist” enterprises seems redundant.

report

[ - ]

FoolishOwl@social.coop

3 points

7 months ago

@accideath I’m calling them capitalist enterprises to emphasize that they are capitalist enterprises. They accumulate capital. That is what they are and defines what they do.

A capitalist enterprise does not decide it has enough and can retire and take up gardening. It is not a person. It does not have a conscience.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

7 months ago

A privately owned enterprise can. Publicly traded ones can’t. A privately owned enterprise also doesn’t need to make more money, if the owner doesn’t want that. A publicly traded company that has to answer to its shareholders has to make more money and to keep growing to appease said shareholders. If you don’t have shareholders you don’t have to do anything like that. That doesn’t mean, of course, that any privately owned company is automatically good – many aren’t – but it does mean that they have the capability to not be evil.

report