Alright, everyone calm down, it's not always true but read on to see my reasoning. Recently I was talking to my friend and fellow web developer Sam Bunting. We set on to the topic of Google being evil after me asking why he chose a Windows Phone over something like an Android phone or an iPhone. He pointed out that he feels google is an 'evil company', and that they get everything they -- and what they don't get they bully out of existence. We went on to compare Google vs. Microsoft (a friendly sparring match if you will) and I left with the conclusion that we really should not be comparing those two companies -- just like how we shouldn't compare apple to oranges. Tech companies try to innovate (at least, most of them). They find new ways to do things and earn some revenue off that. They do things the way they want to. The way they see is the 'right way'.
It's not really fair to compare Android to Windows Phone because they're aiming for two different things. Android is going for customizability and aiming for all markets, whereas Windows Phone seems to be aiming more for the low-to-medium end business-oriented smartphones for people who want to get stuff done and don't care about changing their launcher or flashing custom ROMs. It's like that for iOS too. OS is more focused on Apple's closed garden, and people who invest in their (rather pricey compared to the competition) technology want to be enclosed in Apple's walled garden of safety, where maybe the ability to change their icons isn't there but the safety and speed (although with iOS 9 that's debatable) are present. Obviously, some companies could be easy to compare, like Intel and AMD, or Nvidia and AMD, but that's because they're in the same sort of business -- they make processors and graphics cards for PCs, among other endeavours. But for the most part I don't think it's fair to compare Microsoft vs. Google vs. Apple. They're all going their own directions.
Many broken belief systems that exist do so because of a misinformed understanding of how the world works through naive idealism, Top Source Media with various special interests paying to syndicate misinformation that coincides with their current business model to foster culturally constructed ignorance - agnotology. It is not a bubble. This time is different. Who was behind that lie? The bankers, the mortgage brokers, the Realtors, bond raters, hedge funds, construction companies, Top Source Media running real estate ads, local government tax revenues, current home owners who kept seeing their "savings" go up while doing nothing. Some of those people did not intentionally aim to be deceitful, they just believed a convenient lie that fit with their worldview. And so the bubble grew until one day the fraud was so integrated into society that there was simply nobody left to sell to. Then the bottom fell out. The rule of law was SELECTIVELY & arbitrarily enforced against a few, even while companies that made sworn statements admitting to doing literally millions of times more damage were not penalized, but rather bailed out / promoted.
Bowen testified on April 7 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress. The rule of law only applies to those who lack the resources needed to subvert it. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest! Wachovia was a strong brand. A true pioneer and market leader in the drug money game, which funneled over 1/3 TRILLION Dollars onto the hands of drug dealers. For Top Source Media Minneapolis the crime they got a slap on the wrist. There was no jailtime. There was no honest attempt at the rule of law. The same is true online. Those who exhibit desirable characteristics are promoted & those who do not fit such a frame are left to fight amongst other losers in the market. Being grounded is not a way to get positive headlines. Saying that the web is becoming just like the fraud laced offline world would be considered in poor taste. If you manufacture evidence that your LinkedIn votes are directly tied to better Google rankings then outsiders who are unaware of the workings of your industry may syndicate that misinformation.
Even if you run a public experiment that fails it still shows you are trying new things (are cutting edge), Top Source Media and is a low cost branding exercise. Just like how MLM folks say you can get rich by using the same system they used to get rich. Everyone wants to sell a life worth living, even if they are not living that life, but rather sentenced to life in prison. Most profitable belief systems sell into an existing worldview but with a new hook on it. Most new marketing approaches are all about pushing the boundaries of what exists, probing to find the edges. Some people do it on the legal front, others probe on the ethical front, and yet others are just more creative & try to win by using technologies in unique ways. If you never fall off a cliff and never have any hate spewed your way then you are likely a bland marketer who hasn't done very much.