"Evilness" is not judged only by potential, but also by reputation based on previous history. Clearly companies are in the business of making money, so at some point they may break rules in order to make money, but so do individuals when placed in positions of power.
And no baby is more evil than any other baby, but grownups are very different in that regard, that's why people rely so much on reputation when discussing a person's ethics and trustworthiness, since it's the only metric that counts.
Clearly you can compare the evilness of any 2 companies by looking at their past history, just as we do with individual human beings.
whether products should be used or not
should not depend on who owns them
This argument only holds if after the purchase you OWN said product. But this is not the case with proprietary software, and even less so with web-based services. In such instances you're actually leasing the product and you're depending on the company's good will for continued maintenance and improvement of said product. And because switching products goes from easy to next to impossible, with lock-in effects and all that, the relationship that a company establishes with you after becoming a customer is very important, as you depend on that relationship.
And when building relationships in general, you also have to take into account how that company or person is treating other customers.
Not that open-source products are any better (I'm referring to those who's main sponsor retains copyrights for all contributions), as there have been instances where communities haven't read the "fine print", with the main sponsors later turning around and screwing with said communities. See Sun/Oracle and their schizophrenic involvement in projects such as Mysql and Java.
This is the main reason why companies are acting the way they do, constantly screwing their customers, because customers take it as a fact of life that such companies can screw with them.
Imagine if your neighbor took a piss in your roses every Friday, and you found out about it. Would you still lent him your lawn mower next time he asks? Why would you allow companies to constantly piss on your lawn, instead of voting with your wallet and taking your business to some other company that cares more about you?
I mean, capitalism itself only works efficiently if you are voting with your wallet.
"Evilness" is not judged only by potential, but also by reputation based on previous history. Clearly companies are in the business of making money, so at some point they may break rules in order to make money, but so do individuals when placed in positions of power.
And no baby is more evil than any other baby, but grownups are very different in that regard, that's why people rely so much on reputation when discussing a person's ethics and trustworthiness, since it's the only metric that counts.
Clearly you can compare the evilness of any 2 companies by looking at their past history, just as we do with individual human beings.
This argument only holds if after the purchase you OWN said product. But this is not the case with proprietary software, and even less so with web-based services. In such instances you're actually leasing the product and you're depending on the company's good will for continued maintenance and improvement of said product. And because switching products goes from easy to next to impossible, with lock-in effects and all that, the relationship that a company establishes with you after becoming a customer is very important, as you depend on that relationship.And when building relationships in general, you also have to take into account how that company or person is treating other customers.
Not that open-source products are any better (I'm referring to those who's main sponsor retains copyrights for all contributions), as there have been instances where communities haven't read the "fine print", with the main sponsors later turning around and screwing with said communities. See Sun/Oracle and their schizophrenic involvement in projects such as Mysql and Java.
This is the main reason why companies are acting the way they do, constantly screwing their customers, because customers take it as a fact of life that such companies can screw with them.
Imagine if your neighbor took a piss in your roses every Friday, and you found out about it. Would you still lent him your lawn mower next time he asks? Why would you allow companies to constantly piss on your lawn, instead of voting with your wallet and taking your business to some other company that cares more about you?
I mean, capitalism itself only works efficiently if you are voting with your wallet.