Usually when people complain about misquoting, the misquoted facts aren't true or they make the quotee sound crazy/evil. In this case, though, it's the exact opposite:
“Microsoft is totally off the radar of the cool, hip, cutting-edge software developers.”
"These [partner] software developers and technicians have bet their careers on Microsoft and largely benefited from that choice. In addition, they have helped keep Microsoft relevant during the various ups and downs in the technology market."
"And so the technology-minded people coming out of college have started learning their craft on free software and betting their careers on non-Microsoft wares."
True, true, and true. It seems odd they'd put O'Reilly's name against them if he didn't say that, though, because almost any decent software developer nowadays would readily trumpet the above facts. I'm guessing the reporter made a serious error in their notes and that the quotes have only been accidentally tied to O'Reilly.
Agreed. But perhaps looking at Tim's business partners is useful in understanding the context of the disavowal.
In my mind, I speculate on two situations, not mutually exclusive. (1) Ashlee really did muff the quote (motivation: lazy, sloppy, or something like it). He really seems like a nice guy, though I can't speak to his habits or prior reporting. Mistakes happen; this isn't the worst error I've seen in a newspaper.
(2) Tim wants to walk back his loose, negative talk (motivation: preserving relationship with Microsoft, including a material one, his co-publishing deal with Microsoft Press). [http://oreilly.com/pub/pr/2413]
Though now that I think of it, Tim probably had the sense not to be quite so nakedly dismissive of a partner so important, and especially one so touchy. Tim does have a great reason to bite his tongue, that's all.
I don't think the first statement is strictly true. One of my favorite HNers uses F# for his startup. Microsoft is on DropBox's radar out of necessity. Chrome was first developed for Windows and still performs best on it.
The statement doesn't use any qualifiers. It uses the word "totally". One of the most common ways to take someone's opinion out of context is to make it sound black and white.
With the possible exception of the F#-using denizen of HN, the examples you mention are obligated, by the nature of their model, to exist on Windows. I would think that a better way to characterize whether they are on or off the radar of the relevant demographic would be to examine those cases where there is no such obligation.
I agree but
cutting-edge software developers?
Please they work for Microsoft and Google. People on this forum have a way of deluding themselves. 37signals et. al. aren't the Cutting edge software developer, people who create Flume-Java are.
This forum consists mostly of latte sipping, hip crowd, without any CS degrees and lack of knowledge of Maths.
Microsoft employs as well as attracts some of the best software devs to its platform.
Also it makes stuff easy for them unlike Objective C.
While my degree was a dual major in mathematics and computer science, I'll give you that I do know how to pull my own shots of espresso.
Still, for the purposes of the article, I would think that Microsoft's employees would be the wrong place to look if one were trying to gauge how well they're resonating with up-and-coming developers, developers, developers, developers.