Does Microsoft pay for this kind of story, or is more one of those quid pro quo kind of things? As a real interview with the security team would be somewhat interesting, but this empty praise reads more like a press release then any kind of article
A company's PR department (usually via an outside publicist) approaches a friendly (or likely friendly) journalist with an idea for the story. They promise special access to company information and lots of quotes for the story. Serious outlets won't let the company "help" with the drafting, but sometimes the company will provide proposed language for all or some of the story.
It's a good arrangement for the company and journalist. The company controls the narrative and plants stories that fit its current PR goals.
The journalist gets an easy piece--more or less pre-packaged and with minimal need to do their own investigation. Journalists have an incentive not to pose difficult questions or push back too hard: Those who do get a "bad" reputation with publicists, leaving them out of the running for future pre-packaged stories.
There are lots of variations on the above. Some aren't nefarious and the result is still good journalism.
And sometimes the result is a transparent puff piece.
Parents name their kids after Apple products. Reason dictates some of them would be passionate enough to write about it, and if it gets clicks it'll end up on one outlet or another - this time its Wired.
I do believe people pay for stories and awards and all kinds of stuff to hype their brand, startups in particular.
It's bad for the writer because it shows the writer can be bought, reducing the credibility of previous and future work (though this does happen). It's also bad for Wired as it will be seen as biased for future reports on Microsoft. And it's bad for Microsoft because unpaid positive articles are worth more than positive articles that are suspected to be paid for.
At the most cynical, it's possible the writer wrote this in exchange for building relationships with the sources for future interviews and getting scoops (payment in a different way). More optimistically, the writer was naively passionate as you rote. Still, in any case, the writer could've asked at least some hardball or technically interesting questions for the report.
I think we all do.
FWIW, Microsoft security was talking about the same thing 20 years ago but they were under DOJ scrutiny and couldn't get positive press from then-hip Wired. So I guess positive spin that reads like Microsoft wrote it is new . . .
I suspect that you don't, and I also suspect that you do not see the problem with that. I apologize if I am wrong.
I suspect that people just like to complain about Microsoft. any opportunity to shart on them will be gleefully taken, and carefully camouflaged to look more insightful, and less like the disdain that it actually is.
it's popular to crap on Microsoft today because over 20 years ago they bundled a browser and complained openly about Linux.
no one shits on Google or Facebook at every opportunity, because bending the entire earth and all of its economies to get people to click on advertisements isn't viewed as the absolutely disasterous activity it truly is. no one shits on Amazon because they make people sign in and out of the bathroom, actively crush organization efforts (which is blatantly illegal) or make people piss in bottles.
all that stuff gets a pass here BECAUSE YOU FOOLS WORK AT THOSE PLACES and "my team doesn't do any of that".
complain about fluff pieces for every company or complain about none. "there ain't no third direction."
Yes. Not audibly every time, but this article was particularly shallow, containing nothing but praise even though their security history is hardly immaculate.
By comparison, the last article about Amazon I read here was about their leaked document on trying to crush unions. The last about Google was either them shutting down some other product I've never heard of or a complaint about how their search is now worse.
They don't? I feel like I see ten times as much shitting on Google and Facebook these days, on HN, compared to Microsoft.
it's very weird. things Microsoft did over 20 years ago anger people a lot more than things happening today, and I don't understand why at all.