A few months back when this discussion first started taking place I pointed out that this was about content. What this blog does is make it clear how that content will be controlled.
If you've been in the industry for any length of time you know that Steve's artistry with words emanates from his ability to speak around something while emphasizing his strengths. That's the jobsian reality distortion field.
Steve has always had the ability to say that "your product sucks" while sounding phropetic. He uses that tactic to drive his people internally. He insults them into creating better products. He also has a way to compliment them. Documented history demonstrates how he compels people though insults, and that this is the dominant method he employs. Those same behavior traits ruined his initial attempts at running and directing Apple. Early in Apple's history there were outright screamfests. They became so distracting that repeatedly Steve had to be counseled.
Don't get me wrong, Steve can motivate. I think he's just loosing it. When you watch the first demo he gave of the iPad clearly he was uncomfortable with what he was saying as if he was wondering if his reality distortion field would influence people has it had with the iPhone. The iPhone presentation brought applause and praise but the iPad brought skepticism and alarm. So much so that the whole technology industry has had this constant ongoing rampage of a debate about how Steve is wrong or right.
There's a poll on who you think Apple's main rival is. It lists the obvious names. At the bottom it has "other". What I would choose is the other option, with a comment that Apple's main rival is the consumer, because if that wasn't the case this discussion wouldn't be happening, and we'd have the choice to run flash on the iTechnology products.
In 1985 the cost of a new computer for word processing was much more than $2,500. And, word processing was revolutionary back then, considering most were using electric (and some manual) typewriters. Luckily back then we'd already moved on to copiers so carbon paper was mostly dated.
Steve's points are wrong. He's going the wrong direction. There will be no explosion. There's no proof of any explosion unless Steve is counting the i/phone/pad/pod. Steve's fear is being priced out of the market, so he's trying to evangelize everyone to the walled monastery he's building. There will be moderate adoption as secondary devices which are generally used for limited purposes. When we're proved true he'll call foul.
Let's hear the testimonials from the average mom and pop that have given up their computers as part of this evolution in favor of a simplistic device such as the iPad or a smart phone. No doubt some have but few will transform completely.
The ecosystem you affirm Jobs emphasizes is not the new ecosystem as it will never supplant the current. It isn't the new ecosystem, it's just another, likely having a shorter lifespan.
My mind is as young and sharp as it always has been. Frankly, I was taking liberty with a Mark Twain quote.
The old adage that intelligence skips a generation is probably true. We will have to wait for the next generation to build upon what we have done. The motivation that spawned the article seems to be generation X struggling to be relevant.
Only a fool fails to understand the ramifications of the cloud. It isn't what you think it is. It doesn't have the nebulous use, and anyone with half a brain can predict it's short term demise. A modicum of intellect can churn though the hyperbole concluding the smart terminal masochism is doomed to failure, because it has done so consistently.
What youthful exuberance and insight leads the sheep back to the same old turn sty we've revolved through numerous times before in the past 25 years?
We hear this "everything's already there, been there, done that". But in reality we have a lack of innovation in products and markets because of a rather large monopoly that has stifled competition at every turn, even after being convicted. It isn't that we have one OS to rule them all that's helped us get to where we are, it is inspite of that that we are where we are. We have continued to penetrate new markets, to educate people, to bring products such as tablet computing and smart phones inspite of being smothered from the top.
For the past 25 years we've seen these types of predictions. What's being said is nothing new. Just a new surface on an old polygon.
The industry has a long way to go before it is going to die. There's nothing Apple nor anyone else can do that will change things. The industry, in a way, is at fault for any problems being perceived. The constant niggling of customers by tiny incremental change leads customers to believe that there's nothing happening and thus their unwillingness to pay the price for the technology. Make big changes, some radical, such as from the command line to the GUI and we'll see another 50 years of growth in PC.
This is more feldercarb by some industry exhaust spewing waste into the ecosystem. They are just blowhards seeking to get you to think that this Apple product is the direction we'll be going. We do not run our computers for gaming, as gaming is secondary. We expect significantly more from our computers than a gaming console provides. We do not do serious productivity work on an iPad or gaming console.
And Moore's law has nothing to do with this. Everytime someone says Moore's law has come to an end we have another go at it.
I think what I'm reading are the younger generation that didn't see the world as it was back then, before computing was involved in every aspect of our lives. These people have a problem with their imagination and hence their mind is out of focus when it comes to innovation and technology. I'm certain this isn't quite like the music business where a friend said that the only reason music sucks today is because all the good music has already been made. It's really a lack of vision that drives one to conclude that these cobbled devices are technology's future. They are a just a crutch to innovation.
I don't need $10.00 worth of Hulu. I only watch a few shows there when I can't view them elsewhere. Maybe $18.00 per year.
What'll happen is that they'll not make their quota and resort to all content being subscribed. That'll then reduce their target audience significantly. Count on it.
I bought a tripple core and later found that it was really a quad core. I enabled the 4th core. Confirmed everything in the cpu tools and Windows. After running it with the 4th enabled the system began to blue screen. I disabled that core and all went back to normal.
I couldn't help laugh out loud when I read your first premise.
You need to pay for your support guy. You, personally, won't be happy any other way. I certainly hope you pay for everything that happens in life where you consume someone's time. You should be donating to those people that post answers on web pages that you search for and find with Google.
This is disingenuous, bullshit. Even if he allegedly knows someone it doesn't mean it is prevalent Linux-wide.
What can easily be read from this is that he's claiming that because his friend(s) had a problem that this is the way it is. That's like saying my car was having a problem and the repair shop I called told me to take it and shove it so all mechanics suck--they are socially incapable of providing what anyone asks for.
I know this is a big fib because I support people online when I get the chance. I spend time in the chat rooms helping, and watching others help. Often the amount of energy spent assisting people goes far beyond most anything you get for free in the Windows world. Another reason we know this isn't accurate is because his friends aren't stating their own experiences here. His comments are pure hearsay.
His fib also implies that it is just the Linux world that has the bad attitude. My experience, as a result of owning a small business where I repair computers, is that his accusation is not unique to the Linux world, but is vastly more prevalent in the windows world. In fact, sometimes to ask for free support in the windows world is like asking a brick wall over and over for help and not getting any responses.
In my experience in the online forums I find that there often will be people come in and spam the chat rooms in order to disrupt it while making false statements about Linux being crap and how bad the OS is. They come in and spam repeatedly until they are banned, and then reenter as someone else spamming again until the system completely shuts them down. This isn't a rare occurrence and it isn't an accident. That means that someone with a lot of spite is doing this purposefully with malicious intent, with the intent of poisoning the waters for new users.
In the past year I have encountered zero instances where someone told another person to shut up and read the man pages. In fact, there's absolutely been no time that I can recall that anyone directed a single person to a man page, period. I have seen people direct others to web pages, wiki articles, and to Google search results. This is common even in the Mac OS X and Windows worlds.
My experience shows that there is vastly less depth in supporting people in Windows than Linux. It is far more common to encounter a support page for Windows that has no depth, misleads the user, sending them on wild goose chases to completely incorrect inapplicable web pages--that wastes a lot of users time.
Here's generally what happens in Linux. Someone announces they are a noob to Linux and want help on such and such a problem. Now, granted these people are good people and may have some knowledge about computers. Some fail to understand that this is a new OS to them, that they have to abandon the idea that Linux is a clone of Windows. They just want to know how to make it happen the way they know how to make it happen in Windows--which isn't always appropriate.
Most of the support people try to give the users an answer. It is quite frequent that the users haven't even attempted to solve their own problem or they've just given it a superficial try. What they don't understand is the complexity of their problem. There are simple problems, there are modest problems, and there are also complex problems.
If someone has a simple problem sending them to a web or wiki page is the right thing. It helps free their time so they can assist others with more complex problems. Basically, what I'm reading is that there are a lot of simple problems that the users don't put the effort into resolving themselves, so they go to get support in order to keep from thinking through it themselves, and when they are directed away they take offense. Their selective memory keeps them from remembering that they'd have the same response from the OS X and the Windows crowd. If they'd think back they'd realize that it happens that way more frequently there.
Of those with intermediately difficult and complex pro
The article is a total strawman. Nothing different could be said about closed source. Is this Microsoft funding FUD? If not, the whole gist is vacuous.
They don't gain if it is a free app and eating up their bandwidth to distribute--the developer already paid for the Macintosh and development kits after all. I'm sure there are a lot of developers that could satirically focus on Jobs and Apple. This censorship might chill criticism of him and Apple.
If Warner Music created a device that you had to buy to listen to their music, then required you to buy their music for 2 years, then began to stifle the free expression of the artists in that music store, to the point of only having Disney level Mickey Mouse ethics and morals expressed, lots of people would be upset. And if they didn't tell you that they'd be requiring their artists to only create Disney level koombyas, you'd be upset when you found out. As if you were being manipulated, as if you weren't given a choice to make your own decisions on what you like or disliked.
Most readers here have heard of parents and business owners proclaiming this or that book should be banned. Parents and business people mind you. And we do get outraged at hearing it.
This is outing Apple as a joke. So, now Apple is being outed and people are claiming they are censoring (which they are) and people are upset. Why would you dispute their right to express it here?
Stock a product that blocks people from seeing other points of view while making it impossible to publish other points of view, after creating a product without disclosing they will be in a walled garden, and are committed to it for 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
If you run a stoplight and fail to go in voluntarily and pay your fine isn't it theft--stealing from the city? Ha!
I think it is called "satisfying the customer". Can't satisfy them you can't operate in the market. Jobs is trying to be the tail wagging the dog.
A few months back when this discussion first started taking place I pointed out that this was about content. What this blog does is make it clear how that content will be controlled.
If you've been in the industry for any length of time you know that Steve's artistry with words emanates from his ability to speak around something while emphasizing his strengths. That's the jobsian reality distortion field.
Steve has always had the ability to say that "your product sucks" while sounding phropetic. He uses that tactic to drive his people internally. He insults them into creating better products. He also has a way to compliment them. Documented history demonstrates how he compels people though insults, and that this is the dominant method he employs. Those same behavior traits ruined his initial attempts at running and directing Apple. Early in Apple's history there were outright screamfests. They became so distracting that repeatedly Steve had to be counseled.
Don't get me wrong, Steve can motivate. I think he's just loosing it. When you watch the first demo he gave of the iPad clearly he was uncomfortable with what he was saying as if he was wondering if his reality distortion field would influence people has it had with the iPhone. The iPhone presentation brought applause and praise but the iPad brought skepticism and alarm. So much so that the whole technology industry has had this constant ongoing rampage of a debate about how Steve is wrong or right.
There's a poll on who you think Apple's main rival is. It lists the obvious names. At the bottom it has "other". What I would choose is the other option, with a comment that Apple's main rival is the consumer, because if that wasn't the case this discussion wouldn't be happening, and we'd have the choice to run flash on the iTechnology products.
In 1985 the cost of a new computer for word processing was much more than $2,500. And, word processing was revolutionary back then, considering most were using electric (and some manual) typewriters. Luckily back then we'd already moved on to copiers so carbon paper was mostly dated.
Lol, here we go again.
Steve's points are wrong. He's going the wrong direction. There will be no explosion. There's no proof of any explosion unless Steve is counting the i/phone/pad/pod. Steve's fear is being priced out of the market, so he's trying to evangelize everyone to the walled monastery he's building. There will be moderate adoption as secondary devices which are generally used for limited purposes. When we're proved true he'll call foul.
Let's hear the testimonials from the average mom and pop that have given up their computers as part of this evolution in favor of a simplistic device such as the iPad or a smart phone. No doubt some have but few will transform completely.
The ecosystem you affirm Jobs emphasizes is not the new ecosystem as it will never supplant the current. It isn't the new ecosystem, it's just another, likely having a shorter lifespan.
My mind is as young and sharp as it always has been. Frankly, I was taking liberty with a Mark Twain quote.
The old adage that intelligence skips a generation is probably true. We will have to wait for the next generation to build upon what we have done. The motivation that spawned the article seems to be generation X struggling to be relevant.
Only a fool fails to understand the ramifications of the cloud. It isn't what you think it is. It doesn't have the nebulous use, and anyone with half a brain can predict it's short term demise. A modicum of intellect can churn though the hyperbole concluding the smart terminal masochism is doomed to failure, because it has done so consistently.
What youthful exuberance and insight leads the sheep back to the same old turn sty we've revolved through numerous times before in the past 25 years?
We hear this "everything's already there, been there, done that". But in reality we have a lack of innovation in products and markets because of a rather large monopoly that has stifled competition at every turn, even after being convicted. It isn't that we have one OS to rule them all that's helped us get to where we are, it is inspite of that that we are where we are. We have continued to penetrate new markets, to educate people, to bring products such as tablet computing and smart phones inspite of being smothered from the top.
Right on man.
I don't know why they modded you down. What you said is quite practical and on point.
For the past 25 years we've seen these types of predictions. What's being said is nothing new. Just a new surface on an old polygon.
The industry has a long way to go before it is going to die. There's nothing Apple nor anyone else can do that will change things. The industry, in a way, is at fault for any problems being perceived. The constant niggling of customers by tiny incremental change leads customers to believe that there's nothing happening and thus their unwillingness to pay the price for the technology. Make big changes, some radical, such as from the command line to the GUI and we'll see another 50 years of growth in PC.
This is more feldercarb by some industry exhaust spewing waste into the ecosystem. They are just blowhards seeking to get you to think that this Apple product is the direction we'll be going. We do not run our computers for gaming, as gaming is secondary. We expect significantly more from our computers than a gaming console provides. We do not do serious productivity work on an iPad or gaming console.
And Moore's law has nothing to do with this. Everytime someone says Moore's law has come to an end we have another go at it.
I think what I'm reading are the younger generation that didn't see the world as it was back then, before computing was involved in every aspect of our lives. These people have a problem with their imagination and hence their mind is out of focus when it comes to innovation and technology. I'm certain this isn't quite like the music business where a friend said that the only reason music sucks today is because all the good music has already been made. It's really a lack of vision that drives one to conclude that these cobbled devices are technology's future. They are a just a crutch to innovation.
What's the hotkey to empty the trash? I would like to empty the trash that Steve Jobs keeps spewing. Or is there a flush hotkey.
Microsoft was not the first with the tabletop. That had been out a couple years before Microsoft's version. Microsoft's is just a copy.
Good for them. 50-100 million users world-wide (and growing) is a big market to sell to.
I don't need $10.00 worth of Hulu. I only watch a few shows there when I can't view them elsewhere. Maybe $18.00 per year.
What'll happen is that they'll not make their quota and resort to all content being subscribed. That'll then reduce their target audience significantly. Count on it.
Funny comment. Got me chuckling.
I can appreciate what the guy did. It takes some skills to make that happen.
I bought a tripple core and later found that it was really a quad core. I enabled the 4th core. Confirmed everything in the cpu tools and Windows. After running it with the 4th enabled the system began to blue screen. I disabled that core and all went back to normal.
I couldn't help laugh out loud when I read your first premise.
You need to pay for your support guy. You, personally, won't be happy any other way. I certainly hope you pay for everything that happens in life where you consume someone's time. You should be donating to those people that post answers on web pages that you search for and find with Google.
This is disingenuous, bullshit. Even if he allegedly knows someone it doesn't mean it is prevalent Linux-wide.
What can easily be read from this is that he's claiming that because his friend(s) had a problem that this is the way it is. That's like saying my car was having a problem and the repair shop I called told me to take it and shove it so all mechanics suck--they are socially incapable of providing what anyone asks for.
I know this is a big fib because I support people online when I get the chance. I spend time in the chat rooms helping, and watching others help. Often the amount of energy spent assisting people goes far beyond most anything you get for free in the Windows world. Another reason we know this isn't accurate is because his friends aren't stating their own experiences here. His comments are pure hearsay.
His fib also implies that it is just the Linux world that has the bad attitude. My experience, as a result of owning a small business where I repair computers, is that his accusation is not unique to the Linux world, but is vastly more prevalent in the windows world. In fact, sometimes to ask for free support in the windows world is like asking a brick wall over and over for help and not getting any responses.
In my experience in the online forums I find that there often will be people come in and spam the chat rooms in order to disrupt it while making false statements about Linux being crap and how bad the OS is. They come in and spam repeatedly until they are banned, and then reenter as someone else spamming again until the system completely shuts them down. This isn't a rare occurrence and it isn't an accident. That means that someone with a lot of spite is doing this purposefully with malicious intent, with the intent of poisoning the waters for new users.
In the past year I have encountered zero instances where someone told another person to shut up and read the man pages. In fact, there's absolutely been no time that I can recall that anyone directed a single person to a man page, period. I have seen people direct others to web pages, wiki articles, and to Google search results. This is common even in the Mac OS X and Windows worlds.
My experience shows that there is vastly less depth in supporting people in Windows than Linux. It is far more common to encounter a support page for Windows that has no depth, misleads the user, sending them on wild goose chases to completely incorrect inapplicable web pages--that wastes a lot of users time.
Here's generally what happens in Linux. Someone announces they are a noob to Linux and want help on such and such a problem. Now, granted these people are good people and may have some knowledge about computers. Some fail to understand that this is a new OS to them, that they have to abandon the idea that Linux is a clone of Windows. They just want to know how to make it happen the way they know how to make it happen in Windows--which isn't always appropriate.
Most of the support people try to give the users an answer. It is quite frequent that the users haven't even attempted to solve their own problem or they've just given it a superficial try. What they don't understand is the complexity of their problem. There are simple problems, there are modest problems, and there are also complex problems.
If someone has a simple problem sending them to a web or wiki page is the right thing. It helps free their time so they can assist others with more complex problems. Basically, what I'm reading is that there are a lot of simple problems that the users don't put the effort into resolving themselves, so they go to get support in order to keep from thinking through it themselves, and when they are directed away they take offense. Their selective memory keeps them from remembering that they'd have the same response from the OS X and the Windows crowd. If they'd think back they'd realize that it happens that way more frequently there.
Of those with intermediately difficult and complex pro
The article is a total strawman. Nothing different could be said about closed source. Is this Microsoft funding FUD? If not, the whole gist is vacuous.
They don't gain if it is a free app and eating up their bandwidth to distribute--the developer already paid for the Macintosh and development kits after all. I'm sure there are a lot of developers that could satirically focus on Jobs and Apple. This censorship might chill criticism of him and Apple.
Censorship has never been defined as being mutually exclusive to governments.
If Warner Music created a device that you had to buy to listen to their music, then required you to buy their music for 2 years, then began to stifle the free expression of the artists in that music store, to the point of only having Disney level Mickey Mouse ethics and morals expressed, lots of people would be upset. And if they didn't tell you that they'd be requiring their artists to only create Disney level koombyas, you'd be upset when you found out. As if you were being manipulated, as if you weren't given a choice to make your own decisions on what you like or disliked.
Most readers here have heard of parents and business owners proclaiming this or that book should be banned. Parents and business people mind you. And we do get outraged at hearing it.
This is outing Apple as a joke. So, now Apple is being outed and people are claiming they are censoring (which they are) and people are upset. Why would you dispute their right to express it here?
Stock a product that blocks people from seeing other points of view while making it impossible to publish other points of view, after creating a product without disclosing they will be in a walled garden, and are committed to it for 2 years.