So Apple's taking a side in the Culture Wars...

Apple has joined Google in publicly opposing a California ballot initiative that would deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The company announced Friday that it would donate $100,000 to the No on Prop 8 campaign, which opposes a measure to ban gay marriage that California voters will consider a week from Tuesday. Google has also spoken out against the ballot measure.

For those unfamiliar, a while back (2000) California voted to ban Gay Marriage.  That decision was then over turned by the state's Supreme Court.  Which has now led to a ballot initiative that will over rule the court and amend the California Constitution to permanently ban Gay Marriage.

Though I have many Gay friends I have to admit I can't bring myself to care either way on this.  I'm against discrimination but Gay couples already have Domestic Partnerships which grant full Gay Partner rights.  The law actually states "Domestic Partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits" of married spouses.  So what everyone is really arguing over is a word and I couldn't find that less relevant.

That said, I'm absolutely opposed to Apple, as a company, taking a side in this.

As an Apple Shareholder I'm offended that the company is taking a controversial position that could cost revenue and therefore make my stock worth less.  Recent polls show Prop 8 will likely pass by a whopping 61% to 38% meaning there are far more people who will be potentially offended by this than there are people who will approve of it.

Now some will say "If the executive staff is truly morally opposed to Prop 8 isn't it their duty to spend money on the cause?"

To which I'd say No. If they're truly morally opposed it's their duty to spend THEIR OWN MONEY to fight Prop 8.  Not the company's money.  There's nothing admirable about casting a boardroom vote.  It doesn't take a lot of effort and it doesn't cost them anything personally. 

Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin donated a combined $140,000 to the "No on Prop 8" campaign but they did it out of their own pocket.  I have nothing but respect for that.  THAT is worthy of admiration.  This is worthy of little more than scorn.

P.S.  To any Gay folks in a Domestic Partnership who might read this I'd like to give you the same advice I've given my gay friends.  If you want tell people you're married, just do it.  There's not a law against it, everyone will know what you mean.  Why do you need the Government's approval in the first place?

Addendum: Several people have pointed out that the poll numbers above are false.  It was one of those situations where I started the sentence, got interrupted, and then sat down and finished the sentence without re-reading where I left off.  What I meant to say was that recent polls show Prop 8 passing and that Prop 22, its predecessor, passed by 61% to 38%.  I apologize for misleading.

Mary Jo Foley reports the rumor surrounding Microsoft fast tracking Windows 7 is starting to grow...

As I’ve mentioned a couple of times on this blog, Microsoft privately is telling some of its customers that Windows 7 will be out in the latter half of 2009.

It’s true, as Microsoft’s spokespeople contend, that the “public guidance” around Windows 7 hasn’t changed; Microsoft marketeers continue to state that Windows 7 is on track to ship three years after Windows Vista was released to market (and cite that target date as January 2010).

As a network administrator, Vista was never much of a problem for me.  I didn't want to upgrade and it had effectively nuked the personal computers of several upper management types so no one was really pushing for it.

But as time goes by we're starting to see PCs that come with hardware that doesn't support XP.  Which is a problem for me. 

One would think I could just start installing Vista and be on my way (most of the problems are legitimately ironed out at this point).  But I can't do that for a couple reasons...

1.  Vista's name is now dirt.  To create a roll out plan for Vista I would have to advocate for it because upper management has a negative view of it.  Which, translated, means rolling it out would be one of the few actions non-technical people would question me on if I suggested it.  But if I advocate for it, and things do go wrong, it makes me as the IT Manager look bad (or worse than it would normally make me look).  So I have to have the utmost confidence in Vista to deploy it and I simply don't.

2.  Even though Windows 7 will probably look remarkably similar there are probably going to be some slight changes and with many users even slight UI changes are a big deal.  So in order to deploy Vista I have to make all the pre-requisite changes to my training curriculum only to turn around and redo all that work a year later.  Because even if the changes are small I still have to go over everything to make sure it's accurate.

So to me Vista is not really a possibility, ever.  But Microsoft still insists on taking its time with Windows 7 for some reason. 

This all boils down to the same issue I've pointed out for a while: Vista was a disaster and rather than just accept that and move on Microsoft keeps trying to rehabilitate its image.  The image of a product that isn't even going to be around for that much longer. 

It's stupid.

Microsoft needs to cut their losses now.  Windows 7 should come out as soon as possible even if it only amounts to Vista SP2 in a new package (though they should give it away for free to existing users if that's the case).  Vista's reputation is just too badly damaged at this point.

I mean seriously, when the "I'm a Mac" commercials turned from "Apple is Great" to "Vista Sucks and We All Know It" that should have been a hint to Microsoft that it's time to bail.