All I'm saying is that making a claim like "all the innovative people use Brand A of product X" requires a lot more supporting evidence that "all the people I know use it and they're all innovative". Only in the context of anti-MS does such a flimsy argument receive serious consideration.
"In addition to XMLHttpRequest MS was also setting up their demise by basically destroying the shrinkwrap software industry."
Sure. I was just at Best Buy the other day and they don't have a single box of shrinkwrapped software for sale. It's too bad too since TruboTax would come in really handy about now.
Yes, it's quite common in the computer industry to believe that computers are the most important tools and to think other devices like telephones are part of a lessor class. There are plenty of opportunities in the world to innovate beyond the computer industry and in those situations the computer may very well be no more significant than any other tool.
"His circle is the über-geek entrepreneurial technical elite who set the direction of computing 10 years out."
This reminds me of an interview many years ago with Alan Kay when he became an Atari Fellow. He said he's working on ideas for Atari 10 years out. Unfortunately Atari went out of business before the 10 years were up.
"I think the talent in the industry is starting to look elsewhere"
If you just said that some in the industry are starting to look elsewhere, that would be fine. But by using the phrase "the talent" you're just back to the same question-begging we started with.
So I guess you're saying that things like electrical power, phones, TVs, CD/DVD players, iPods, etc aren't technology products because they cater to the non-techie masses?
"And I think his point was just that among innovators and edge pushers, Windows is rare -- would anyone really argue with that?"
Sure, I'd take that argument. Innovation isn't about what brand of computer you use any more that it's about what brand of telephone you use. These are just tools.
"I think that tells you a lot about Paul Graham's everyday environment. He's working with startups, he's trying to put together teams of the bright and innovative, and what he's finding is that most of these people are not using Microsoft software. "
Sure, "Bright and innovative" people only use Macs. Buy a Mac and you can be bright and innovative too!
For some reason that quote reminds me of this one:
"Take your Jedi weapon! Use it. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!"
Luke did take his weapon, he did hate, and he did try to strike the Emporer down, but it turned out his journey towards the dark side wasn't complete after all. And neither is Apple's.
Dabbling in art, music, poetry, etc doesn't make you an artist by profession. I'm sure that many people who worked at IBM, Intel and MS on the PC could just as legitimately claim they were artists as Atkinson et al. This is just marketing.
I never realized that 68000 assembly language was an artistic tool. We pretty much know who designed the Mac (not counting Xerox). Which of those individuals do you claim were career artists?
Claiming the success of the iPod will lead to a larger market share for Apple computers is like saying that the success of "Dancing with the Stars" will lead to greater sales of Mickey Mouse dolls.
They have already, but in certain circles it just won't be recognized. Everybody builds on the prior art of others, but that fact is ignored for any company in competition with MS. Apple has benefited the most from this.
I didn't know Parc was involved in DRM-free downloads.
But seriously, Apple paid for a tour, but there's pretty much no evidence to support the theory that Apple bought a license to Xerox's IP. Apple never mentioned a license when Xerox sued them and it would have been a key piece of evidence in Apple's favor.
I'd say it's a safe bet that neither one of us has any personal professional recollection of the "software technology and operating systems" of the '60s or more importantly, the business aspects of the computer industry of that era. The decade that the government spent in court over IBM's alleged monopolistic practices is more evidence than I've seen to support the contention that IBM promoted open standards, but feel free to provide some real evidence next time you hit the bottle.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea what you're talking about.
All I'm saying is that making a claim like "all the innovative people use Brand A of product X" requires a lot more supporting evidence that "all the people I know use it and they're all innovative". Only in the context of anti-MS does such a flimsy argument receive serious consideration.
"In addition to XMLHttpRequest MS was also setting up their demise by basically destroying the shrinkwrap software industry."
Sure. I was just at Best Buy the other day and they don't have a single box of shrinkwrapped software for sale. It's too bad too since TruboTax would come in really handy about now.
He did try to kill the Emporer, but Darth intercepted his swing with his own lightsaber.
Yes, it's quite common in the computer industry to believe that computers are the most important tools and to think other devices like telephones are part of a lessor class. There are plenty of opportunities in the world to innovate beyond the computer industry and in those situations the computer may very well be no more significant than any other tool.
Yes, I'm quite sure you think all the innovators agree with you by definition.
"But the ideas he was working on... did they die with Atari?"
Actually, they did.
We're not arguing about hammers vs. screwdrivers, we're arguing about which brand of hammer to use.
"His circle is the über-geek entrepreneurial technical elite who set the direction of computing 10 years out."
This reminds me of an interview many years ago with Alan Kay when he became an Atari Fellow. He said he's working on ideas for Atari 10 years out. Unfortunately Atari went out of business before the 10 years were up.
"I think the talent in the industry is starting to look elsewhere"
If you just said that some in the industry are starting to look elsewhere, that would be fine. But by using the phrase "the talent" you're just back to the same question-begging we started with.
So now Mac users are beautiful as well as bright and innovative? This is supposed to be a serious counter-argument?
This "younger half" statement is just another ad hominem argument i.e. "only old fogies would disagree with me".
So I guess you're saying that things like electrical power, phones, TVs, CD/DVD players, iPods, etc aren't technology products because they cater to the non-techie masses?
"And I think his point was just that among innovators and edge pushers, Windows is rare -- would anyone really argue with that?"
Sure, I'd take that argument. Innovation isn't about what brand of computer you use any more that it's about what brand of telephone you use. These are just tools.
"I think that tells you a lot about Paul Graham's everyday environment. He's working with startups, he's trying to put together teams of the bright and innovative, and what he's finding is that most of these people are not using Microsoft software. "
Sure, "Bright and innovative" people only use Macs. Buy a Mac and you can be bright and innovative too!
For some reason that quote reminds me of this one:
"Take your Jedi weapon! Use it. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!"
Luke did take his weapon, he did hate, and he did try to strike the Emporer down, but it turned out his journey towards the dark side wasn't complete after all. And neither is Apple's.
Dabbling in art, music, poetry, etc doesn't make you an artist by profession. I'm sure that many people who worked at IBM, Intel and MS on the PC could just as legitimately claim they were artists as Atkinson et al. This is just marketing.
I never realized that 68000 assembly language was an artistic tool. We pretty much know who designed the Mac (not counting Xerox). Which of those individuals do you claim were career artists?
Claiming the success of the iPod will lead to a larger market share for Apple computers is like saying that the success of "Dancing with the Stars" will lead to greater sales of Mickey Mouse dolls.
"You're right, they didn't license it; they gave Xerox some Apple stock in exchange for those visits to the lab."
Which makes perfect sense since Xerox was exposing valuable trade secrets.
They have already, but in certain circles it just won't be recognized. Everybody builds on the prior art of others, but that fact is ignored for any company in competition with MS. Apple has benefited the most from this.
"Netscape revolutionizes the Web"
How, by making money on it? It's not as if Netscape invented the browser.
I didn't know Parc was involved in DRM-free downloads.
But seriously, Apple paid for a tour, but there's pretty much no evidence to support the theory that Apple bought a license to Xerox's IP. Apple never mentioned a license when Xerox sued them and it would have been a key piece of evidence in Apple's favor.
Apple was the first company that ever offered DRM-free downloads, right?
I'd say it's a safe bet that neither one of us has any personal professional recollection of the "software technology and operating systems" of the '60s or more importantly, the business aspects of the computer industry of that era. The decade that the government spent in court over IBM's alleged monopolistic practices is more evidence than I've seen to support the contention that IBM promoted open standards, but feel free to provide some real evidence next time you hit the bottle.
Maintaining internal interoperability doesn't preclude the use of interfaces and protocols that lock out the competition.