txlaw

I yawn because I don't find the offer compelling. My belief is that the world will adopt the Netflix model - all you can eat streaming from a catalogue of media for a monthly subscription price. This, to me, is the right solution. Offering something less than that is underwhelming, hence the yawn. I'm going to pass on this. I think that's what Apple is trying to get at with their new Match service. Netflix gives access to older video content at a fixed monthly price. For relatively new content, there is still a window where pay per view (through movie theaters, MVPD, YouTube, and other storefronts) and purchase is the business model. Apple is trying to do the same thing for music, only the older audio content is initially based on the user's existing audio library. New music is accessed through purchase, broadcast/subscription model (XM/Sirius), broadcast/ad model (regular radio, Pandora, etc.), and ad-supported on-demand listening (e.g., YouTube,Vevo). It will be interesting to see what type of window that record labels put into place for music before new music gets added to the old music catalogue.

Wow, i thought you were kidding! http://dealbreaker.com/2010/01/jeffrey-gundlach-not-set-up-by-tcw-big-fan-of-dr--fellatio-series/ He did say in the interview that he used to be a drummer for a rock and roll band! Oh well I guess some habits die hard. Whoa. Would not have expected that.

I definitely think you could characterize the iOS updates as baby steps. In fact, a lot of the improvements are features that have already been part of Android. Still, incremental updates like these are good and have the effect of keeping iOS/MacOS one of the frontrunners in the platform war. The iMessage system is very interesting. In order for it succeed in the biz world, I think Apple will need to agree with Google and Microsoft to make their messaging systems interoperable. That would be real troublesome for RIMM. Also sucks for the carriers who love to charge exorbitant rates for SMS. Lion updates are pretty awesome for only $30 (if you already have a Mac). I really like the gesture UI additions. Also a nice way to get people who have Macs to buy from the App Store even if they don't have other Apple devices, since everything syncs (albeit only over wifi). We continue to see the convergence of iOS and the MacOS. I wouldn't be surprised to see a device in two to three years that combines the aspects of the MacBook Air and iPad and that has both interfaces available for use depending on how you're using the device. The music deal is very interesting. Pretty smart to get people to legitimize their less than legal music by paying $25 a year. It could potentially be like the Netflix of music. New songs are bought for $1 and you get access to the a catalog of older music for an annual fee. VAL is right, I think, to worry about having your music scanned to see how much pirated music you have. Apple and the record labels might try to keep a record of the people who appear to be the worst offenders. iCloud and untethering from the PC is very good. Sucks that you can only sync over wifi, but that highlights the problem we are having with spectrum shortages and the last mile problem. I was surprised there was no new iPhone announcement. All in all, though, I thought it was a pretty eventful Keynote. Certainly beats the "new" Windows 8 UI announcements, which seem rather quaint in comparison.

Since a lot of us are invested in GOOG, MSFT, RIM, DELL, NOK, INTC, LVLT, etc., I figure we all will want to look at this stuff. Probably most of us already have, but just in case. http://www.apple.com/ I was impressed. I'm interested in hearing what others think.

I think we have to separate Krugman the NYT columnist from Krugman the economist. That interview with Charlie Rose shows that Krugman isn't his column and that the column makes him seem more ideologically driven than he really is. His point was that we were in a fiscally precarious situation back in 2003 and that the tax cuts were irresponsible. Now, of course, that we are in a debt deflation scenario, he advocates fiscal stimulus. Those aren't contradictory stances. I would agree that Krugman's column got very shrill during the Bush years and that he gave Obama a pass at first. I actually have stopped reading his column.

Thanks for posting. He was quite prescient, wasn't he? Funny how people think Krugman doesn't understand the concept of "Keynesian endpoints" and whatnot.

http://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-jeffrey-gundlach-2011-5

Well, it looks like Einhorn's argument was much more than what the press initially detailed. This paragraph was particularly interesting: Well Ray Ozzie, Gary Flake and Li Gong have all left Microsoft, along with Robbie Bach, and J Allard, who were largely responsible for the success of X-Box. Four other division presidents have left Microsoft since 2008 as well as former CFO Chris Liddell. Good grief! Interesting that Einhorn is the cousin of Sheryl Sandberg.

It's a pretty radical change. I suspect a lot of the business users who want continuity in terms of the way their employees interact with their work computers will keep the old UI, which is an option in Windows 8. I'm not really a fan of the tile interface. But some of the other stuff in the video was pretty cool. It will be interesting to compare it with iOS 5, OSX Lion, and whatever else Apple announces next week.

Windows 8 UI Preview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p92QfWOw88I&feature=youtu.be

I am not saying that I am taunting. I am saying that Google was taunting (but they were just adolescents at the time, so the maturity can be forgiven)... and they will get (and have been) taunted back because of it. For example, as you mentioned Steve Jobs makes fun of it. And Bill Gates jokes "Do less evil".... etc... It's just all in good fun... don't get uptight. Making fun is one thing. Trying to get under someone's skin is another. When you say that someone is a hypocrite, that's a little bit more than good-natured ribbing. That's the way I take it, at least. I said the culture is one of hypocrisy. "culture" of a company is not the same thing as insulting a someone. People have said Microsoft is evil -- that is not an insult to a specific "someone". Perhaps you are just realizing that as a part of an organization, you feel a bit slighted personally when the organization is denigrated. Lesson learned, one that I learned way the hell back when I joined Microsoft. It's probably new for you, but if they keep going down that path of things you disapprove of, then you'll get used to it. You really do know how to get under someone's skin, don't you? Yeah -- I'm "just realizing that as a part of an organization, you feel a bit slighted personally when the organization is denigrated." ::) Okay, people have said or implied in the past that the "culture" of Microsoft was evil. Was that right or not? If not, then is it right to respond by saying that the "culture" of Google is one of hypocrisy? That's what I meant when I said, "very mature." I've been goaded by you into relapsing into a "MSFT is evil" frenzy when I don't even believe that. This is getting ridiculous. I'm done. I'm sure you will respond, but I'm done.

I am not saying that I am taunting. I am saying that Google was taunting (but they were just adolescents at the time, so the maturity can be forgiven)... and they will get (and have been) taunted back because of it. For example, as you mentioned Steve Jobs makes fun of it. And Bill Gates jokes "Do less evil".... etc... It's just all in good fun... don't get uptight. Making fun is one thing. Trying to get under someone's skin is another. When you say that someone is a hypocrite, that's a little bit more than good-natured ribbing. That's the way I take it, at least.

That would be better. The don't be "evil" was clearly a swipe at the "Evil" Empire. Thus, be prepared to have a thick skin. It's one of those perfect "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" situations. Taunting people... they might taunt you back. Sure, it was a swipe at Microsoft. A justified one that ultimately backfired on them. Wouldn't say that Google lives in the same sort of house that Microsoft does, though. Definitely not. Re: taunting -- very mature. I thought you wanted to stop the discussion . . .

Agreed - charts are meaningless in a value investing context. I read something today about Intel possibly manufacturing non-Intel designed chips (e.g. ARM chips). I thought that was surprising. I bet Intel is fervently working on a real competitor to chips like the A5, Snapdragon, Cortex, etc. And it's likely that they'll pair up with Microsoft's Windows 8 SoC/Tablet and WP7 operating systems handily. That is, an attempt to reproduce the Wintel monopoly on tablet and phone form factors is underway. If this is actually happening, Microsoft may have an interesting advantage over Apple in the tablet world. Whereas Apple requires that all application developers rebuild their offerings for the iOS operating system, Microsoft platform applications can more easily be ported to tablets. The meat of these thick-client applications is already compatible with the underlying operating system. The conversion effort will mostly be an exercise in UI redesign. Intel and Microsoft both have a lot to gain from maintaining this successful business relationship. You can bet that they will push hard to extend the PC to the tablet, and the tablet to the phone. Open question, at what point does a tablet become a phone, or a phone become a tablet? Other than size, my iPad and my friend's iPhone seem to support the exact same feature set (with Skype acting as my traditional phone set). Is a phone a tablet? What's in a name? PS. I have been using Bing on my work computer for two weeks now. I'm completely satisfied. There's no measurable gap between results. PPS. I made a smallish investment in MSFT, so I'm now long MSFT. I will probably make a more substantial buy over the coming weeks. That would be dangerous for them to try to reproduce Wintel, and recent statements between the two companies suggest that they aren't so buddy buddy. Take a look at this article: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/05/intel-takes-pot-shots-at-arm-windows-misses-point-completely.ars Microsoft doesn't want Intel saying that legacy Microsoft programs won't be supported by Windows on ARM. And Intel is just saying that to show that they may get more market share than is expected because of the purported legacy software issue. My thinking is that MSFT will want to work with all the manufacturers to get Windows on as many devices as possible. Intel is not going to have a monopoly on these new mobile devices.

Okay, this will be my last post on the matter. ----------- I was under the impression that Java could potentially have developed such that it would pose a threat to the profitability of the Windows platform. Microsoft execs also appear to have been worried about that possibility as well. However, since you were a developer who was on the ground at that time, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it that Java sucked at that time. But could it never have posed a threat to the Windows platform? I'm not entirely sure. I will recognize that Java was probably over-hyped by its supporters. Note that Apple makes the same arguments about Flash that you have made. Apple claims not to support Flash because it's buggy. But I don't think that is the rationale behind their not supporting Flash. Instead, Jobs doesn't want Flash to progress in a way that allows developers to circumvent the App Store. With respect to standards, I'm in support of standards bodies or open standards development. I like the notion that HTML5 could become an alternative platform with various standards and codecs built in that don't require royalty payments to certain corporations or to patent pools. Obviously, everything can't be open source, but I like the idea of building on open source platforms. I think I noted that I was being hyperbolic with the "MSFT is evil" language. Partly, that was in reaction to the oft-used dismissal of the "don't be evil" motto that Google tries to follow. Actually, you sound a lot like Steve Jobs when you start talking about how the "don't be evil" mantra is bullshit. But is he being fair or is he being super competitive? My take is that you're misconstruing the "do no evil" tenet as self-righteousness. For certain Googlers or Google supporters, they are definitely being self-righteous in invoking the saying. For others -- the vast majority, I believe -- they sincerely believe or at least agree with the underlying sentiment behind the motto. Actually, "don't be evil" is far too simplistic a phrase that allows people to take potshots at the company. The motto at Google should really be, "we try to do well by doing good." If you have a YouTube account, you are now required to get a Google account. But so what? The vast majority of YouTube videos are available for watching without signing into the service. You don't have to use Gmail. In this case, leaving aside the privacy issues (which are fair game), cross-selling is occurring. Is it unfair for Wells Fargo to migrate Wachovia customers to its own platform so that it can more easily cross sell to its newly acquired depositors? Of course not. With regards to getting down in the gutter, I would agree that certain actions have been taken that I would not approve of. On the other hand, I also recognize that sometimes you have to be willing to get your hands dirty to protect the mission. To what extent you can do this while still claiming to stick to your motto is debatable. In the end, I think having the principle of "don't be evil" and trying to stick to it far outweighs any accusations of hypocrisy that may or may not be warranted. That goes for religious/moral beliefs as well. My gut reaction to actions that stray from the path is not to gleefully call the actor a hypocrite. Nobody is perfect. Institutions certainly can't be perfect. Obviously, we have different reactions to these moral stances taken by institutions or individuals. We have had disagreements on this before with regards to Buffett and taxes, right? ------ Anyways, those are my final thoughts. Have a good holiday weekend.

It was Google pushing them to do it: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/02/reuters_us_google_microsoft This is why I just see Google as a culture of hypocrites. Just compete. Make a better product and shut up (I wish I could just be dictator). Firefox had huge share in 2009, and growing: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20091208190055!Web_browser_usage_share.svg Google's frustration is that they wanted instant share. So they have this disingenuous argument that the browser market isn't competitive, despite IE's share clearly declining rapidly even though it's preinstalled! And yet you argue that Google is just making the internet easier to use? Hah! Right. An OS without a web browser REALLY makes it easier to use, right? Yah sure, because IE is so hard to use. Google is not a culture of hypocrites. Many if not most of the people who work there believe in doing the right thing, and there are a lot policies and positions that Google takes at a higher level that the people there really disagree with, based on discussions I've had with Googlers. Internal debates are encouraged. I disagree with Google piling on against MSFT in the EU. But Google has started to do stuff like that in order to fight against the dirty tactics used by evil Microsofties who will justify anything as long as it lines their pocketbooks (tit for tat hybperbole, okay?). IE may not be hard to use, but it is stuck in the past and keeps the Web from being what it could be. MSFT has no incentive to innovate to the fullest extent with regards to IE because of the competitive threat that the Web poses as an alternative platform. So, yeah, I absolutely think that Google is making the Internet easier to use. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise, and only a Microsoftie would attempt to make that argument because of their blind rage towards Google. I do find it interesting hearing your viewpoints on this, as most of this took place before your time. I think it was shaped on rhetoric, the idealism of cliches like "write once run anywhere". I believe you are under the impression that Java was a suitable client side technology. You also seem to imply that Internet Explorer stood in the way of the web being based on standards. What you probably aren't aware of (not being an engineer) is that Netscape was not based on standards. Look up the "layer" element for an example of this. The IE team had to play catchup with Netscape, and because important websites rendered in Netscape in a given way we had to emulate their behavior. This occasionally required deliberately copying their bugs so the pages would lay out the same. Later, after Netscape had passed, some of the criticism heaped on the IE browser was rooted in some of those compatability hacks! Ironic, worth a laugh but not much else. Here is your browser based on web standards "Netscape 4" (or do you agree that was just a bunch of hot air?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_element No, I'm not under that impression. Whether Java was or was not actually destined to become a suitable client side technology is irrelevant. Microsoft's actions, in totality, were intended to prevent alternative platforms from emerging to challenge the Windows OS, and they crossed the line in some instances. MSFT should have just competed on the merits back in the day because they probably would have won anyway until the Web developed further. I used Netscape back then, by the way, but perhaps I would have used IE more had I been working in an office during the browser wars. Additionally, I am a lawyer, but I also have an engineering degree, so I can't help but be insulted by your jerky comments about how I'm not aware of this or that. I also don't care for your accusation that I or people I know who have the same viewpoint are hypocrites.

It was Google pushing them to do it: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/02/reuters_us_google_microsoft This is why I just see Google as a culture of hypocrites. Just compete. Make a better product and shut up (I wish I could just be dictator). Firefox had huge share in 2009, and growing: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20091208190055!Web_browser_usage_share.svg Google's frustration is that they wanted instant share. So they have this disingenuous argument that the browser market isn't competitive, despite IE's share clearly declining rapidly even though it's preinstalled! And yet you argue that Google is just making the internet easier to use? Hah! Right. An OS without a web browser REALLY makes it easier to use, right? Yah sure, because IE is so hard to use. Google is not a culture of hypocrites. Many if not most of the people who work there believe in doing the right thing, and there are a lot policies and positions that Google takes at a higher level that the people there really disagree with, based on discussions I've had with Googlers. Internal debates are encouraged. I disagree with Google piling on against MSFT in the EU. But Google has started to do stuff like that in order to fight against the dirty tactics used by evil Microsofties who will justify anything as long as it lines their pocketbooks (tit for tat hybperbole, okay?). IE may not be hard to use, but it is stuck in the past and keeps the Web from being what it could be. MSFT has no incentive to innovate to the fullest extent with regards to IE because of the competitive threat that the Web poses as an alternative platform. So, yeah, I absolutely think that Google is making the Internet easier to use. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise, and only a Microsoftie would attempt to make that argument because of their blind rage towards Google.

Actually, one of the big reasons I enjoy the MacBook is that it didn't have all that OEM garbage installed on it. It's so lame that my HP laptop has their own update software -- Microsoft already has a Windows Update where HP can refresh their drivers if they'd just take advantage of it. Instead, there's all their monitoring software on there, and it's constantly wanting to check for updates, etc... What a mess. And none of this matters anyhow. People understand now that web browsers belong with the OS preinstalled -- Microsoft was just early (Apple appears to have copied their lead here). And all the companies preinstall their own browser. Nobody cares, browsers are free on all platforms, Microsoft or not. IE only ships on Windows, there are tons of browsers on other platforms now and people actually use those platforms. People can make browsers and charge for them on Chromebook laptops, but nobody will because there is no market for it. Netscape simply had a model that was a flash in the pan -- they took a free product and then copied it and tried to sell it. It failed initially because of Microsoft, but again Google doesn't look like they try to sell their browser on non-Microsoft platforms either. Just as evil I suppose if making a free browser is evil. Personally, as a consumer I'm happy when somebody gives something away. Look, I have no quarrels with MSFT for having put IE on Windows. That made sense to me, and I disagree with the EU's forbidding Microsoft to put IE into Windows. But I do think that the sum total of Microsoft's actions were anti-competitive back then. They extracted monopoly profits for a long time, which would have been fine had they not engaged in anti-competitive actions. That is the danger in having a monopoly position.

I get your argument that monopolies are bad. I'm wondering though why it means a company is no longer able to design their own consumer experience. You're assuming that the company with a dominant market position is taking action to "design their own experience" rather than to protect their monopoly position. If you could show that protecting the user experience from degradation was the primary motivation behind the company's actions, that might fly. Some company actions would be legitimate; others would not be legitimate. The illegitimate actions could warrant sanctions under the antitrust laws as being anticompetitive. Apple uses this BS argument all the time -- we just want to protect the Apple experience. When in reality, they want to create/protect their moat. Just because Apple does it doesn't mean that Microsoft is excused for having done it. Have you ever heard of the Carterfone decision? Basically, AT&T used to prohibit equipment not furnished by AT&T from being connected to AT&T's facilities. The BS rationale that AT&T used was that the devices would interfere/break the network, essentially degrading the user experience. The Carterfone decision by the FCC held that this requirement was unduly discriminatory and that AT&T, then the dominant power in the telecom industry, had to allow non-AT&T devices on the network. Microsoft was the dominant power in the OS market back in the day, and it would have been difficult to dislodge it from that position, largely due to the network effect. I personally think that to allow MSFT to prevent OEMs from installing apps, which weren't necessarily buggy, would be like allowing AT&T to continue doing what it was doing prior to Carterfone. Again, see Carterfone and more recent decisions. Comcast is/was a monopoly, and they can't prevent you from picking which set top box you want to attach to their facilities, as per regulatory decision. If the box you pick has "tawdry links to apps all over the user interface," so be it. If Motorola's box actually broke the network, then maybe Comcast could prohibit it, but that would likely be a BS argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/business/16costco.html http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/04/securities-fraud-lawsuit-claims-level-3-failed/ These are very superficial examples that may have been thrown out. My point isn't that Costco or Level-3 are evil, especially not based on these two examples. My point is that over the long run you get mean-reversion of evilness. It's not usually a planned thing, either - even though it looked that way at Microsoft. They were just trying to hold on to their business. Trying to dig their moat wider. When you look at the subprime mortgage situation, all of the parties were part of a system with an evil result.. however each party was doing something that wouldn't be considered evil. Consider Madoff.. the guy didn't start out as evil. He was just doing his thing. But eventually he got a bit behind, and then a lot behind, and then he was straight up seeking to defraud people. I doubt that he set out to defraud the world. He just ended up doing it. And this is a guy who could easily have afforded to walk away. We'll watch Google to see how they fare. They're already catching some heat on privacy, on China, and on the drug ad thing. The real test of their resolve to not do evil will occur when someone really threatens their business. I think a big part of "Don't Be Evil" was taking advantage of the backlash against Microsoft.. but maintaining that image is going to be a drag, and then maybe a joke (even Gates joked re: China that Google's motto should now be "Do Less Evil"). It's not a bad thing that corporations have evil tendencies by default... it's just a thing. Corporations tend to be amoral -- not good or evil -- because of the fragmentation of ownership. Sometimes their interests are aligned with society. Sometimes their interests are not. However, they are still made up of people, and I think you can have business entities that generally try to do the right thing as a result of business culture. At least, I hope that's possible.

In the beginning, they were not a monopoly. I mean, way back in the beginning Microsoft made software for Apple because Wozniac was lazy! (floating point Basic) Later on, you are saying that once they become a monopoly Compaq or Dell can modify it. I'm saying that once a company possesses monopoly power, and even if that monopoly position was acquired by legitimate means, actions that a non-dominant company could lawfully take may not fly for a dominant company under our antitrust laws. That is a fundamental philosophy underpinning our antitrust laws in the US. Monopolies are bad. Competition is good. I don't know. I'm not an antitrust lawyer. But I suspect that Apple would have to do something more than refuse to sell to Dell based on actual degradation of the experience. On the other hand, if Apple refused to sell to Dell because Dell wanted to pre-load Firefox and Chrome as well as Safari, then . . .

You are working from the premise that altering Windows experience is a right. It was allowed to happen for a long time, and then everybody just sort of assumed the OEMs had this right because they'd been doing it all along. Microsoft from day one should have told them not to change anything on the desktop, but they're free to use whatever hardware they choose. Truthfully, the reason why I hate all that OEM install is that I had to go through the process of wiping every machine clean when I'd get it at Microsoft, and then painstakingly installing the OS again (which usually involved searching the web for drivers). Pain in the butt. And the reason? Because those OEM images were so full of bugs, that we'd need to get them out of the way so that we could actually know a bug was ours when we found one (and it's not meaningful to have your apps crash left and right on OEM bugs when you're really hunting for IE bugs). Apple after all never allowed 3rd party OEMs to even install their OS! They still don't. I'm arguing that MSFT should not have an IP right to prevent alteration of the "Windows experience." You know, AAPL sued MSFT for stealing its "look and feel." And I believe XRX sued AAPL. Luckily, both Apple and Xerox lost. I believe Samsung and HTC are being sued by Apple right now re: the iPhone interface, and I think Apple should lose. Additionally, a contract preventing an OEM from changing the desktop would normally be fine except that the validity of the contract should be superseded if the antitrust laws were implicated.

Precisely. And yet the government thought it terrible that Microsoft wouldn't let the OEMs do this or that. Those OEMs only exist in the first place because Bill Gates is no Steve Jobs. Imagine a world with no choice of PC hardware -- personally, I think that's where the OEMs belong, hardware differentiation only. Microsoft should be allowed to control the look and feel of the Windows experience as it's their IP. And that includes reducing desktop icon clutter as they see fit. Well, luckily, we have both MSFT and GOOG gunning for AAPL, and both those companies will be able to prevent AAPL from dominating. And I wouldn't be surprised if AMZN really does something that rocks the boat. MSFT shouldn't be able to control the look and feel of the Windows experience as they see fit because it's their IP. That same thinking would've tanked Windows because Apple would've shut MSFT down via the legal system.

Yep. I had an mp3 player long before Apple unveiled the Ipod, infact, I had things like video and album art long before an ipod user ever did (incidently, the company who made it ended up going bankrupt, so much for the best technology winning!). The Ipad is basically an inferior version of older HP technology with a crippled OS, see here - http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2010/01/ipad-vs-hp-tc1100.html. It's also widely accepted that older Apple "innovations" like GUI interfaces were stolen from Xerox. The real innovation with Apple is clearly the marketing, joined-up thinking, and culture that Jobs has developed around Apple. Technically, Apple is probably even more evil than Microsoft. Not only do they want to control the OS, they want to control the hardware, how you shop for media, the underlying platforms, practically everything! Each barrier that is thrown up, it effectively widens the moat creates a toll booth. I don't know what it's like in the States, but we have folks over here in Europe signing up to 24 month contracts, paying €200-€300 for the handset, then paying €50-€70 a month to use the damn thing. These guys then use the device to logon to itunes or the appstore, funneling even more revenue into the Apple machine. The culture and brand is so stong, that you have the very same people actively evangelizing and marketing Apple to their friends for free. You're not giving Apple enough credit for their innovations in UI design. GUI was originally Xerox, but Apple understood its value and helped really push the bounds. Expose and other useful interface design built into OSX? iPod interface? Much better than existing MP3 players. Multi-touch? Apple. Smart phone, app interface? Apple was first and they're trying to sue Samsung to claim rights. I don't think they should win, but they were first. I"m sure I'm leaving plenty of examples out.

It's not that Microsoft isn't evil, it's more like all corporations are, by their nature, evil. Google gets away from it for now because they are in a unique position - too young, too dominant, and in a market that is growing too quickly. Eventually Google's employees / managers will make incremental choices that revert the evilness to the mean. This is an ancillary function of the free market system and incentives. Nobody gets a bonus for good behaviour or playing fair at recess. Everything is tied to profits. What about Costco? What about Level 3? You will give up some profits if you play fair, but it's not like it's impossible if you have good people at the top who try their best to do well by doing good.