| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> All,
>
> Let me first say that this post is from an AFOL that happens to know quite a
> bit about the Microsoft relationship. Brad is putting together a post to
> talk about the details of the alliance as we speak. However, in the
> meantime, I want to calm the storm a little.
Jake, thanks for stepping forward and clarifying some of the concerns that
have been raised. This is good to hear, and I think it's a very good sign
to hear this coming from an AFOL who "made it inside."
> First, let me say, LEGO has *not* sold its soul. Despite what some might
> think about the company, Microsoft is not the devil, anymore than IBM, P&G,
> Pepsi or any other big company is.
Of course Microsoft isn't the devil. :-) On the other hand, what _isn't_
the devil? It depends on your definition. For some people, maybe the devil
is anything impure. Maybe the devil is simply anything immoral. Or maybe
it's anything amoral.
Some people feel better pretending that Microsoft's alleged abuse of its
alleged monopoly position makes them the devil -- along with IBM, P&G, Pepsi,
Disney, Intel, Sony, Big Tobacco, etc.
Calling Microsoft the devil is a coping mechanism.
> Second, let me say, LEGO has partnered with Microsoft on a much more content
> centric basis. In fact, much of the partnership involves MSN, not
> technology.
Ah, but MSN _is_ technology. Software technology. Technology, some people
worry, that MS may abuse.
> There has been absolutely nothing agreed to about the RCX being
> recoded, all gaming software made only for PCs, or any other Dr. Evil type
> hopes of world domination. Today *is not* the day to wear black.
Well, nobody's quoting the Book of Exodus just yet.
Give this all some time to blow over. It's only been a few days. This is,
for some people, a complete shocker. The Lucas and Disney licenses weren't
that surprising, but this is ... well ... a shock.
> As an AFOL, I have to say that it was embarrassing seeing the front page of
> LUGNET actually call out this relationship as a "Pact with the devil".
I'm afraid that you have either misunderstood or misread the zinger line,
or are perhaps taking it personally. What the text says (exactly) is this
(square brackets denote boldface and angle brackets denote a hyperlink):
[Billund's Gateway to the future, or Making a pact with the devil?]
On January 10, the LEGO Company and Microsoft announced the formation
of "a sweeping global alliance that will result in new services and
enhanced products and technologies for consumers around the world..."
<Discuss>
It succinctly represents two opposite and widely held views and then invites
discussion. All viewpoints are valid. What's embarrassing about that? Is
it a surprise that MS isn't loved by all?
The same could have been said in 1998 when news broke of the original
Lucasfilm license, or when news broke of the Disney license; some people
feel that George Lucas is the devil; some people feel that Disney is the
devil.
> Regardless of your feelings for or against MS, they *are not* the source of
> all evil in the universe.
Just the software industry... ;-)
Seriously, everyone has different definitions of evil. For some types of
people, MS does represent the closest thing to evil in their lives. It's
important to internalize that if you want to understand how there can be so
many different opinions about MS. If you disagree with someone's assertion
that MS is evil, it may be helpful first to discuss what evil is before
arguing that MS isn't evil.
> Further, it was saddened to me that there was discussion about LEGO losing
> its morality over this. Absolutely none of the values of TLC have been
> compromised, given up, or adulterated in any way because of this alliance. I
> am not really sure where that thinking came from.
Again, I think you're misinterpreting or misunderstanding what was said.
It's not that TLC's morality or values will be lost because of this alliance,
but that the existence of this alliance is an indicator that TLC's morality
and values have already changed (probably very gradually over time).
Is that bad? I don't know. All I know is that it disappoints me. And maybe
I'm wrong. I invite other perspectives.
Maybe the disappointment is also part of growing up and realizing that LEGO
is not just a toy but also a multinational company with an eye on the bottom
line.
> Please think rationally about this event. Regardless of any personal slant
> about the underlying social issues, the fact remains that Microsoft and MSN
> have a huge reach. LEGO partnered with them to extend awareness for our own
> brand.
Sounds like it was a very logical decision.
(Of course, when I say "logical," I mean "amoral," as in not moral and not
immoral but _a_moral (or _un_moral, if you will). Unfortunately, "logical"
has a positive connotation and "amoral" has a negative connotation.)
Businesses gotta do what they gotta do.
> It is frustrating trying to keep the group informed of TLC happenings when
> so many *massive* and unsupported assumptions are made. I have a hard time
> keeping up with valid issues involving the AFOL community when *so* *so*
> many posts are made based on an assumption made 10 posts ago and has just
> snowballed into something so far off base that there is no longer even a
> shred or reality in it.
I know how that can feel. It *does* hurt when people don't get it, when
people jump to conclusions, when people are so critical.
However, it goes with the territory. Learn when to expect the bumps -- and
be surprised (and worried) when they don't come.
If you know that LEGO made the right decision in partnering with Microsoft,
celebrate your convictions.
> For instance, someone posted:
> "They will likely roll the Mindstorms software into the next version of
> Windows"
>
> On what information was this based? What part of the press release even
> talked about the Mindstorms software, or any other software for that matter??
Try not to take every post so seriously. Again, this also comes with the
territory. It's natural for people to rant and vent and let off steam when
there's something that upsets them and they feel there's little if anything
they can do about it. Sometimes people truly spread misinformation, other
times they're just worried and their imagination runs wild.
> In summary let me just say, everyone at TLC still has their souls intact.
> They made no blood oaths. And I certainly am not the same Jacob wrestling
> with the devil!
Heh heh. That was Jacob wrestling with an *angel*, not the devil -- only it
was God (the old testament god, that is) in disguise as an angel. Jacob was
a superb wrestler and the match was even enough to be a deadlock, so the angel
touched the socket of Jacob's hip, putting it out of joint and giving Jacob a
handicap. Jacob eventually gave in and, because he had done as well as he
had, demanded that the angel bless him. The angel then blessed Jacob, changed
Jacob's name to Israel, and Jacob (Israel) walked thereafter with a limp, a
constant reminder that his life was dependent on God. (c.f. Genesis 25)
Supposing that one were playing the role of Jacob, how might one stay sharp?
Might it be possible to avoid being touched on the hip, or is it inevitable?
It's food for thought.
> Jake McKee
>
> Note: The views expressed here, do not necessarily represent the views of my
> employer
Even though I've been a vocal part of the poo-pooing that's been going on, I
totally appreciate your jumping in and sticking up for LEGO. Beneath all the
ad hominem attacks against Microsoft lie genuine concerns for the well-being
of LEGO, although you have to know how to look for them. I believe what is
going on is akin to to a friend pulling a friend aside and saying, "Hey, do
you know what you're getting _into_? Are you really sure you want to do
this? Please don't hurt yourself this way."
Ultimately, surely everyone realizes this is LEGO's decision and LEGO's
business. How LEGO reacts to the concerns is telling.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
| Snipped a lot of good, levelheaded discussion so I could pick on the less good, less levelheaded. (...) I don't see this comment as useful in the context of this particular discussion, even with the smiley. It shows your strong anti MS bias which I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
| All, Let me first say that this post is from an AFOL that happens to know quite a bit about the Microsoft relationship. Brad is putting together a post to talk about the details of the alliance as we speak. However, in the meantime, I want to calm (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general) !
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
