I care what Microsoft does on various levels. I'm not a Microsoft fan and I think Vista is a disaster, but honestly, I would *love* for Microsoft to come out with a great new OS. I'm the sort of guy who likes good software wherever it comes from.
On the other hand, I don't care about wishlists or press releases. I also don't think that Windows can continue to compete if they keep doing what they're doing. Some key things that Windows absolutely has to do if I'm going to continue using it in the future:
Drop activation. At the very least, go back to offering a corporate version which doesn't require activation. Activation makes it hard to manage lots of machines, image them, and I don't need my computer going into "reduced functionality" because of an error".
Improve imagine support and booting from external drives. For a model to copy, watch how easy it is for someone to copy their whole OSX install to an external USB drive using Carbon Copy Cloner, and then to immediately reboot and run the copy on the USB drive, or boot that USB drive on *any* Mac without needing to reconfigure anything or install drivers.
better interoperability with Unix/Linux/OSX.
That's the bare minimum that Microsoft can do before I'll even look at them again.
And how about moving IE's temp files somewhere else? Okay, you can still set permissions on the folder, but get it out of the user's profile.
Why would you get them out of the user's profile? They're user files. I fully agree that cache files and the like shouldn't show up in an obvious user-visible place. For example, Adobe's updater puts a folder in "My Documents", WTF?! That's wrong just wrong on a couple levels. But user cache files should be in the user's profile.
And I'm tired of seeing C:\WINDOWS\Temp Temp directories do not belong in the OS directory.
I'd agree with this one. The OS system directory should be inviolable except for system updates. It shouldn't really contain settings, temp files, or user information.
I agree that privacy and anonymity are necessary for preserving freedom. However, I think that concept has limits. Like if I write a letter to someone in which I threaten to kill that person, it should probable be admissible in court.
Also, it's been traditional for Presidents' private papers and even diaries to be made public for the sake of history, which I think is a good thing. But certainly I expect the actions of public officials to be pretty transparent. If the President's "private thoughts" are in e-mails that he writes in an official capacity, and those emails have with no national security ramifications, then I pretty well expect those e-mails to be public. Transparency of government is vital to democracy.
So while I think it might be fair to claim we should respect GWB's privacy and not read his e-mails to his daughters, I also don't think we should accept that e-mails between GWB and the RNC chairmen (for example) are "private" if GWB claims that they're e-mails between friends.
Yeah, it makes sense, and I'm not surprised that they made that choice. I'm just surprised that no one has made a bigger deal of it. In one of the videos, the guy from Google says Webkit is the "standard". It seems like a pretty big endorsement of Apple's browser, coming from the biggest supporter of Mozilla's browser. It's a bit of a PR bitchslap, if you ask me.
This was part of the idea behind the UMPC. People didn't really buy it. I could see some sort of a universal home remote control being worthwhile, but only if my computers and appliances and stereo/TV all operated with some open standard that was easy to set up.
Yeah, I'm surprised there hasn't been a bigger deal made out of that. It's not too surprising, since Apple and Google have been partnering up quite a lot lately. However, Google is also the big sponsor for Firefox. I guess Firefox wasn't mobile-ready yet.
It might be worth it for them just by making it hook in easily with Google ads and search.
Think about it this way: as mobile phones become more powerful and internet-ready, more people will be doing more of their casual online stuff on their phones. Right now, lots of smartphones are defaulting to Windows for their development. That means their web browsers will probably use Live search for their search engine. Phones will recommend Hotmail for anyone looking for webmail. It will become a good way for Microsoft to fight Google for online dominance.
So what's Google's way to fight back? Apple's keeping the iPhone software to themselves. Palm is basically a joke. RIM's stuff is pretty limited. Google has to build their own platform so that Nokia and Motorola will be using Google Search, Gmail, Google Apps, Blogger, etc. as a default.
So that's where the money is. That's where all Google's money comes from.
Some of what you're saying isn't really fair. I'll translate your statements into something more closely resembling the truth:
The phone will only work as long as Apple wants it to work
The phone may cease working if you try to hack it in unsupported ways.
The Phone will cost a fortune to use outside of the local areak
AT&T charges a fortune if you use international roaming.
The phone is programmed to check mail and deliver revenue to your service provider even when it is "off".
If you don't understand the difference between your phone being "off" and the screen being turned off, you'll be confused because your phone will continue to work when you think it's "off".
The phone is a closed environment, and will probably require several days with a loaner phone, at additional cost, to repair.
Being a closed environment and the time it takes to repair aren't connected. The iPhone is a "closed" environment in that Apple hasn't released the SDK yet or allowed 3rd party programs to be installed *yet*. They've announced that this will be resolved in February.
this phone does not have the advanced features that everyone seems to find so critical in other phones, such as user generated custom ringtones.
Apparently "user generated custom ringtones" is an "advanced" and "critical" feature...?
I generally agree that cellphone tech lags in in U.S., but you realize that pretty much the same high-end Nokia and Samsung phones sold in Europe are also sold in the U.S., right?
A lot of those phones, though, aren't sold through the carriers in the US, and therefore most American consumers never see them.
The old Adobe Bridge was a waste of disk space, IMO, and I never got any use out of it.
Personally, I hate Adobe's extra applications. You can't install Photoshop without getting Bridge, Stock Photos, and their own little help system. There are more of these sorts of things, too. Macromedia used to automatically install Opera too, back before Opera was free. Can't I just install Photoshop, and only Photoshop?
It's not that annoying in Windows, I guess, but in OSX, I don't having tons of shit in my Applications folder.
I have a semi-off-topic rant that will take a while to get back on topic:
I think any reasonable person can grant at least that the ribbon is a decent UI change and it's interesting. Personally, I'm not a Microsoft fan and I'm not even sure I like the ribbon. I've tried it, and it makes some sense, but it didn't really help or hurt me very much. But at least it's a case where Microsoft seems to be trying to make something good.
I've always favored the idea of having totally separable tools rather than huge, complicated integrated applications. For example, I favored separating out the Mozilla suite into Firefox and Thunderbird. I don't really like having Outlook use Word as the e-mail editor. I tend to want lots of different tools, each doing a relatively small set of tasks, but doing each very well. Things should only be lumped into a single application if they're very closely related. Due to this viewpoint, I've always thought that there should be two separate applications: a word processor for typing/editing, and a page layout application. Each should be tuned for their respective purposes, instead of trying to make a jack of all trades, master of none.
Recently I've started using both Apple Pages and Microsoft Word 2007, and I think each has come up with a decent compromise. The Pages interface feels more like a layout application, but I've never gone looking for a word-processing features. Word 2007, on the other hand, has almost made a split between a word-processing application and a layout application by using ribbon to separate those tasks a bit. I like the result of each.
Now how does this relate to Photoshop? Although the novice might think that Photoshop is pretty much used for just cropping, resizing, and converting graphics from one format to another, it really is complex on the level of a word processor. Some artists use it with a stylus for freehand work. Web designers use it to mock up webpages. Designers make heavy use of layers and plugins for composition and alterations. And then there are some semi-independent tools, like exporting for the web or Vanishing Point. They've even thrown in functionality for some limited 3D and video editing.
As with the word-processing, I'm tempted to say some of these should just be broken out into separate applications. Make each cheaper by themselves, and bundle them all into a CS package (that's pretty much what they do anyway). However, there's definitely room to refine the interface to make some of these things fit together better, either through a MS ribbon-like approach or from an Apple simplification/resorting sort of approach.
Well the UI for Acrobat is fine, but I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that it's a "shambling, bloated monster of a program." Fair enough. They definitely have Acrobat and Acrobat viewer trying to do too much, and loading too many plugins by default.
Not really. The number of organizations and businesses who have started assuming that people have internet access is huge. It's the way things work now. As more people access services online, fewer resources are being spent on the offline alternatives. Sure, you can live without internet, but you can't "function" in the societal sense. You're basically cut-off. You can't even find a decent job these days without going through Monster.com or Craigslist or something.
Yeah, and the telephone and cable systems have had to be regulated because of abuse. Besides, I'm not saying that the internet has to be entirely public. I pay private companies for my gas and power. But they're still treated differently from cable and internet because they're considered infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the US doesn't seem to treat it's communications infrastructure quite as though it's real infrastructure. It's more like a luxury item, in spite of the fact that so much of our society is built in such a way as to assume that you have it. It's getting increasingly difficult to function without a cell phone or an internet connection. I'm not sure it matters too much though, since even our "necessary infrastructure" is crumbling.
Still, a little perspective is warranted. Some of these conventions are old conventions that have been with Apple for a while. Some of Apple's "non-standard" behavior are conventions that Apple had before Windows, Gnome, or KDE even existed. Just because the behaviors are new to you doesn't mean that they're some new random violation of the "standard".
It's a complicated issue, but in the most simple analysis, Apple created the convention, Microsoft violated it, and Linux DEs copies Windows because Windows was more popular. Apple has in some cases copied Windows's way of dealing with things, and in some cases has chosen not to. But let's not pretend that Apple is just being stupid or contrary. They did it first, and they stayed with their way so as to be consistent, for the benefit of their customers.
The problem is that a lot of big companies get to a certain size and power when they can afford to abuse their own customers because they are able to ensure that their customers have no choice. They form little cartels and engage in anti-competitive practices. They use their immense resources to brainwash the public and destroy any competing company, especially if that competing company offers a better product.
When you hit that point, these companies are worse than the government. They have just as little need to be efficient as "the government", and they really don't have to please their customers anymore. The big difference between themselves and the government at that point is that the government has at least the pretense of "the public good" as a goal, whereas corporations only have "maximizing shareholder investment".
Yes, you can choose another corporation, and you can choose another government too. But in neither case to revolutions come easy.
Putting your faith in big corporations is crazy. They will screw you over every time, and not because of any particular person but a "good" corporation is built to screw its partners, suppliers, and customers out of every penny possible.
I actually don't condone putting your faith in the government or the private sector. In any case you have to get involved and keep a watchful eye. People tend to be inefficient, lazy, ineffective, and generally bad at getting things done. It really doesn't matter which type of organization they "work for", public or private, they're not going to do a good job unless someone keeps them on their toes.
This is the idea that I keep getting back to if I think about the ISPs enough: the Internet should be thought of as infrastructure. It's comparable to roads, water, and electricity. For many reasons (including various humanitarian and economic reasons), we want a robust infrastructure in our country that is efficient and maintained well enough that the general citizenry can take it for granted. Yes, there are some people who live out in the middle of nowhere without water, electicity or roads, but most people in most places are able to simply expect that those things will exist and work.
The implimentation is different in different places and for different sorts of infrastructure. I pay a private company for electricity. I don't pay to drive on roads, but I do pay tolls for some bridges. There's still some wiggle-room for how the whole internet thing happens, but it needs to happen in such a way that the gross majority of people receive acceptable access at a reasonable price.
...maybe there should be a distinction between incremental inventions and novel (meaning really new) inventions.
I agree that there's some sort of distinction to be made there, but it's fuzzy at best. Look deeply enough into the most novel of inventions, and you'll find that's it's basically cobbled together from already-existing inventions and well-known principles. That's just how these things work.
But I agree that I don't think of the iPhone as an "invention". Even though I think it's cool and innovative, it just doesn't do anything that hasn't been done elsewhere. I might consider the whole multi-touch thing an invention, but it's only part of the iPhone, and it existed elsewhere first.
Ok, so you can't use it because *you* expect behavior that's different from what you get on OSX. If you use a given platform for a long time, you get used to whichever conventions that platform uses, and then switching to another can be disorienting. That doesn't make other platforms' conventions wrong, it just makes them, "not what you're used to."
I use Gnome, KDE, Windows, and OSX on a pretty regular basis, and each have their quirks. At least OSX generally avoids prompts like, "Would you like to cancel this operation?" with the only possible responses being "Ok" or "Cancel". In order to replace a folder by dragging and dropping it, you have to click on a button that says "Replace". Pretty clear. I've actually seen users get confused, though, when they dragged one folder into anotherin Windows, got a prompt, hit "ok", and had the folders merge when they actually wanted to *replace* the folder. They weren't even Mac users, they were just novice users.
Personally, I'd like to see three options: Replace, Merge, and Stop.
The typical user drags and drops a folder called "photos" from their flash drive to their desktop, which - unfortunately - also contains a folder called "photos"... they click the wrong button thinking it will replace duplicate files WITHIN the folder, not the folder itself (a careful wording change that could easily be missed in a hurry) and bam - all of the photos that were on the desktop to begin with are gone!
That's what the typical Windows or Linux power user might expect, but your typical user actually is often unsure about what the result will be from dropping that "photos" folder into a folder that already has a "photos" folder. Honestly, I've been doing some level of desktop support for more than 10 years, and it's one of those things that only *seems* intuitive because you've already been trained to expect it. I continue to have users ask me what will happen if they drag one folder in over to replace another. Many people expect that it will erase the old folder.
I'm not saying that merging the folders isn't a useful function, but let's not pretend that it's the "obvious" and "right" answer. It's just the answer you're used to.
It's true that having a good backup (in this case, Time Machine snapshots) does mitigate the problem of data loss, it doesn't remove the importance of the OS maintaining data integrity. Losing data during a move/copy simply should not happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I care what Microsoft does on various levels. I'm not a Microsoft fan and I think Vista is a disaster, but honestly, I would *love* for Microsoft to come out with a great new OS. I'm the sort of guy who likes good software wherever it comes from.
On the other hand, I don't care about wishlists or press releases. I also don't think that Windows can continue to compete if they keep doing what they're doing. Some key things that Windows absolutely has to do if I'm going to continue using it in the future:
That's the bare minimum that Microsoft can do before I'll even look at them again.
And how about moving IE's temp files somewhere else? Okay, you can still set permissions on the folder, but get it out of the user's profile.
Why would you get them out of the user's profile? They're user files. I fully agree that cache files and the like shouldn't show up in an obvious user-visible place. For example, Adobe's updater puts a folder in "My Documents", WTF?! That's wrong just wrong on a couple levels. But user cache files should be in the user's profile.
And I'm tired of seeing C:\WINDOWS\Temp
Temp directories do not belong in the OS directory.
I'd agree with this one. The OS system directory should be inviolable except for system updates. It shouldn't really contain settings, temp files, or user information.
I agree that privacy and anonymity are necessary for preserving freedom. However, I think that concept has limits. Like if I write a letter to someone in which I threaten to kill that person, it should probable be admissible in court.
Also, it's been traditional for Presidents' private papers and even diaries to be made public for the sake of history, which I think is a good thing. But certainly I expect the actions of public officials to be pretty transparent. If the President's "private thoughts" are in e-mails that he writes in an official capacity, and those emails have with no national security ramifications, then I pretty well expect those e-mails to be public. Transparency of government is vital to democracy.
So while I think it might be fair to claim we should respect GWB's privacy and not read his e-mails to his daughters, I also don't think we should accept that e-mails between GWB and the RNC chairmen (for example) are "private" if GWB claims that they're e-mails between friends.
Yeah, it makes sense, and I'm not surprised that they made that choice. I'm just surprised that no one has made a bigger deal of it. In one of the videos, the guy from Google says Webkit is the "standard". It seems like a pretty big endorsement of Apple's browser, coming from the biggest supporter of Mozilla's browser. It's a bit of a PR bitchslap, if you ask me.
This was part of the idea behind the UMPC. People didn't really buy it. I could see some sort of a universal home remote control being worthwhile, but only if my computers and appliances and stereo/TV all operated with some open standard that was easy to set up.
Yeah, I'm surprised there hasn't been a bigger deal made out of that. It's not too surprising, since Apple and Google have been partnering up quite a lot lately. However, Google is also the big sponsor for Firefox. I guess Firefox wasn't mobile-ready yet.
It might be worth it for them just by making it hook in easily with Google ads and search.
Think about it this way: as mobile phones become more powerful and internet-ready, more people will be doing more of their casual online stuff on their phones. Right now, lots of smartphones are defaulting to Windows for their development. That means their web browsers will probably use Live search for their search engine. Phones will recommend Hotmail for anyone looking for webmail. It will become a good way for Microsoft to fight Google for online dominance.
So what's Google's way to fight back? Apple's keeping the iPhone software to themselves. Palm is basically a joke. RIM's stuff is pretty limited. Google has to build their own platform so that Nokia and Motorola will be using Google Search, Gmail, Google Apps, Blogger, etc. as a default.
So that's where the money is. That's where all Google's money comes from.
Some of what you're saying isn't really fair. I'll translate your statements into something more closely resembling the truth:
The phone will only work as long as Apple wants it to work
The phone may cease working if you try to hack it in unsupported ways.
The Phone will cost a fortune to use outside of the local areak
AT&T charges a fortune if you use international roaming.
The phone is programmed to check mail and deliver revenue to your service provider even when it is "off".
If you don't understand the difference between your phone being "off" and the screen being turned off, you'll be confused because your phone will continue to work when you think it's "off".
The phone is a closed environment, and will probably require several days with a loaner phone, at additional cost, to repair.
Being a closed environment and the time it takes to repair aren't connected. The iPhone is a "closed" environment in that Apple hasn't released the SDK yet or allowed 3rd party programs to be installed *yet*. They've announced that this will be resolved in February.
this phone does not have the advanced features that everyone seems to find so critical in other phones, such as user generated custom ringtones.
Apparently "user generated custom ringtones" is an "advanced" and "critical" feature...?
I generally agree that cellphone tech lags in in U.S., but you realize that pretty much the same high-end Nokia and Samsung phones sold in Europe are also sold in the U.S., right?
A lot of those phones, though, aren't sold through the carriers in the US, and therefore most American consumers never see them.
The old Adobe Bridge was a waste of disk space, IMO, and I never got any use out of it.
Personally, I hate Adobe's extra applications. You can't install Photoshop without getting Bridge, Stock Photos, and their own little help system. There are more of these sorts of things, too. Macromedia used to automatically install Opera too, back before Opera was free. Can't I just install Photoshop, and only Photoshop?
It's not that annoying in Windows, I guess, but in OSX, I don't having tons of shit in my Applications folder.
I have a semi-off-topic rant that will take a while to get back on topic:
I think any reasonable person can grant at least that the ribbon is a decent UI change and it's interesting. Personally, I'm not a Microsoft fan and I'm not even sure I like the ribbon. I've tried it, and it makes some sense, but it didn't really help or hurt me very much. But at least it's a case where Microsoft seems to be trying to make something good.
I've always favored the idea of having totally separable tools rather than huge, complicated integrated applications. For example, I favored separating out the Mozilla suite into Firefox and Thunderbird. I don't really like having Outlook use Word as the e-mail editor. I tend to want lots of different tools, each doing a relatively small set of tasks, but doing each very well. Things should only be lumped into a single application if they're very closely related. Due to this viewpoint, I've always thought that there should be two separate applications: a word processor for typing/editing, and a page layout application. Each should be tuned for their respective purposes, instead of trying to make a jack of all trades, master of none.
Recently I've started using both Apple Pages and Microsoft Word 2007, and I think each has come up with a decent compromise. The Pages interface feels more like a layout application, but I've never gone looking for a word-processing features. Word 2007, on the other hand, has almost made a split between a word-processing application and a layout application by using ribbon to separate those tasks a bit. I like the result of each.
Now how does this relate to Photoshop? Although the novice might think that Photoshop is pretty much used for just cropping, resizing, and converting graphics from one format to another, it really is complex on the level of a word processor. Some artists use it with a stylus for freehand work. Web designers use it to mock up webpages. Designers make heavy use of layers and plugins for composition and alterations. And then there are some semi-independent tools, like exporting for the web or Vanishing Point. They've even thrown in functionality for some limited 3D and video editing.
As with the word-processing, I'm tempted to say some of these should just be broken out into separate applications. Make each cheaper by themselves, and bundle them all into a CS package (that's pretty much what they do anyway). However, there's definitely room to refine the interface to make some of these things fit together better, either through a MS ribbon-like approach or from an Apple simplification/resorting sort of approach.
Well the UI for Acrobat is fine, but I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that it's a "shambling, bloated monster of a program." Fair enough. They definitely have Acrobat and Acrobat viewer trying to do too much, and loading too many plugins by default.
Bah, that's just BS.
Not really. The number of organizations and businesses who have started assuming that people have internet access is huge. It's the way things work now. As more people access services online, fewer resources are being spent on the offline alternatives. Sure, you can live without internet, but you can't "function" in the societal sense. You're basically cut-off. You can't even find a decent job these days without going through Monster.com or Craigslist or something.
Fine. And Microsoft sticking with their personal conventions is part of what makes it difficult for Mac users to use. Big deal.
Yeah, and the telephone and cable systems have had to be regulated because of abuse. Besides, I'm not saying that the internet has to be entirely public. I pay private companies for my gas and power. But they're still treated differently from cable and internet because they're considered infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the US doesn't seem to treat it's communications infrastructure quite as though it's real infrastructure. It's more like a luxury item, in spite of the fact that so much of our society is built in such a way as to assume that you have it. It's getting increasingly difficult to function without a cell phone or an internet connection. I'm not sure it matters too much though, since even our "necessary infrastructure" is crumbling.
Still, a little perspective is warranted. Some of these conventions are old conventions that have been with Apple for a while. Some of Apple's "non-standard" behavior are conventions that Apple had before Windows, Gnome, or KDE even existed. Just because the behaviors are new to you doesn't mean that they're some new random violation of the "standard".
It's a complicated issue, but in the most simple analysis, Apple created the convention, Microsoft violated it, and Linux DEs copies Windows because Windows was more popular. Apple has in some cases copied Windows's way of dealing with things, and in some cases has chosen not to. But let's not pretend that Apple is just being stupid or contrary. They did it first, and they stayed with their way so as to be consistent, for the benefit of their customers.
The problem is that a lot of big companies get to a certain size and power when they can afford to abuse their own customers because they are able to ensure that their customers have no choice. They form little cartels and engage in anti-competitive practices. They use their immense resources to brainwash the public and destroy any competing company, especially if that competing company offers a better product.
When you hit that point, these companies are worse than the government. They have just as little need to be efficient as "the government", and they really don't have to please their customers anymore. The big difference between themselves and the government at that point is that the government has at least the pretense of "the public good" as a goal, whereas corporations only have "maximizing shareholder investment".
Yes, you can choose another corporation, and you can choose another government too. But in neither case to revolutions come easy.
Putting your faith in big corporations is crazy. They will screw you over every time, and not because of any particular person but a "good" corporation is built to screw its partners, suppliers, and customers out of every penny possible.
I actually don't condone putting your faith in the government or the private sector. In any case you have to get involved and keep a watchful eye. People tend to be inefficient, lazy, ineffective, and generally bad at getting things done. It really doesn't matter which type of organization they "work for", public or private, they're not going to do a good job unless someone keeps them on their toes.
This is the idea that I keep getting back to if I think about the ISPs enough: the Internet should be thought of as infrastructure. It's comparable to roads, water, and electricity. For many reasons (including various humanitarian and economic reasons), we want a robust infrastructure in our country that is efficient and maintained well enough that the general citizenry can take it for granted. Yes, there are some people who live out in the middle of nowhere without water, electicity or roads, but most people in most places are able to simply expect that those things will exist and work.
The implimentation is different in different places and for different sorts of infrastructure. I pay a private company for electricity. I don't pay to drive on roads, but I do pay tolls for some bridges. There's still some wiggle-room for how the whole internet thing happens, but it needs to happen in such a way that the gross majority of people receive acceptable access at a reasonable price.
I agree that there's some sort of distinction to be made there, but it's fuzzy at best. Look deeply enough into the most novel of inventions, and you'll find that's it's basically cobbled together from already-existing inventions and well-known principles. That's just how these things work.
But I agree that I don't think of the iPhone as an "invention". Even though I think it's cool and innovative, it just doesn't do anything that hasn't been done elsewhere. I might consider the whole multi-touch thing an invention, but it's only part of the iPhone, and it existed elsewhere first.
Ok, so you can't use it because *you* expect behavior that's different from what you get on OSX. If you use a given platform for a long time, you get used to whichever conventions that platform uses, and then switching to another can be disorienting. That doesn't make other platforms' conventions wrong, it just makes them, "not what you're used to."
I use Gnome, KDE, Windows, and OSX on a pretty regular basis, and each have their quirks. At least OSX generally avoids prompts like, "Would you like to cancel this operation?" with the only possible responses being "Ok" or "Cancel". In order to replace a folder by dragging and dropping it, you have to click on a button that says "Replace". Pretty clear. I've actually seen users get confused, though, when they dragged one folder into anotherin Windows, got a prompt, hit "ok", and had the folders merge when they actually wanted to *replace* the folder. They weren't even Mac users, they were just novice users.
Personally, I'd like to see three options: Replace, Merge, and Stop.
Time will take care of the weight. Things will keep getting smaller and lighter. Also, Apple is quite good at fitting a lot into tight packages.
Given that I am my Director, I don't think it will be hard to explain it to me.
The typical user drags and drops a folder called "photos" from their flash drive to their desktop, which - unfortunately - also contains a folder called "photos"... they click the wrong button thinking it will replace duplicate files WITHIN the folder, not the folder itself (a careful wording change that could easily be missed in a hurry) and bam - all of the photos that were on the desktop to begin with are gone!
That's what the typical Windows or Linux power user might expect, but your typical user actually is often unsure about what the result will be from dropping that "photos" folder into a folder that already has a "photos" folder. Honestly, I've been doing some level of desktop support for more than 10 years, and it's one of those things that only *seems* intuitive because you've already been trained to expect it. I continue to have users ask me what will happen if they drag one folder in over to replace another. Many people expect that it will erase the old folder.
I'm not saying that merging the folders isn't a useful function, but let's not pretend that it's the "obvious" and "right" answer. It's just the answer you're used to.
It's true that having a good backup (in this case, Time Machine snapshots) does mitigate the problem of data loss, it doesn't remove the importance of the OS maintaining data integrity. Losing data during a move/copy simply should not happen.