[FoRK] What the hell just happened?

silky michaelslists at gmail.com
Tue Apr 6 19:15:29 PDT 2010

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Stephen Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
>>> Yes, with your initial expectation set by reputation.  Apple's reputation
>>> is
>>> sky high in most measurement vectors.  They will need a lot of missteps
>>> to
>>> lower that much.  Contrast that with Microsoft: It is almost universally
>>> said that their products aren't really usable until 3.0, and more than
>>> half
>>> of those tend to fail.  Even after huge revenue streams from users who
>>> blindly buy in and those pulled in by product tying.
>> Just because someone is bad doesn't mean someone else is good. It
>> doesn't follow that becase I don't like the iPad that I'd love a
>> surface tablet pc.
> You are completely misunderstanding: Apple's reputation is good because they
> have had a string of recent successes with well-polished products.
>  Microsoft's is, net, bad because of many reasons, including the fact that
> new products are often unpolished and/or less than they should be.  People
> will tend to assume that Apple has thought out a new product while they will
> be skeptical of a new Microsoft product.
> I have no idea how you arrived at those two sentences from what I said.

I'm not misunderstanding; I was trying to tell you that the
comparision means nothing to me, because as I said before, I try and
evaluate things on merit. And you're doing exactly what I said early;
assuming there is divine purpose to the device specifically because
it's from Apple. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but it's nothing
but a marketing ploy to make *you* think of it (the consumer). It
makes you feel part of the process. It's a trick.

That's not to say that everything needs to be spelled out. But really,
take a look around, you're being sold something without a purpose and
instead of saying "hey, what can I use this for" you're saying "don't
worry Apple, I'll buy it and find a way to use it because I believe
that you know best". Fine, do that. But it's a bit shocking to me.

>>>>> Problem solver == tool user == technologist == gadgetophile ==
>>>>> transparadigmophile.
>>>> Well, I'm a problem solver, but I'm not a technologist or gadgetophile
>>>> or the last thing. Is that illegal by your statement? If so, well, bad
>>>> luck.
>>> Not illegal, just self-limiting.  Not being a technologist means
>>> drastically
>>> limiting the tools you can bring to the job.  That will tend to limit you
>>> to
>>> jobs that don't require tools, i.e. it will limit your reach.
>> What rubbish. Anyone who isn't like some set of rules you layout is
>> limiting their reach? I could equally argue that because I don't waste
>> time on gadgets I learn more and hence improve my reach. Either
>> argument here is completely personal and totally useless for the other
>> person. I can't believe you would actually sometihng so clearly
>> ridiculous and wrong, so I'll leave it there.
> Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Depends on what you and I mean by technologist,
> gadgets, and "learning more".  There is too much to learn, so there are
> plenty of levels of knowledge that don't require too many tools to obtain.
>  Although, at some point in the future or past, it is or will be tough to
> learn competitively without taking advantage of all the tools, gadgets, and
> paradigms available, even if the resulting work doesn't need them.  The iPad
> is, potentially, such a tool.  I'd like a number of things fixed about it
> (much higher resolution, price, storage for instance), but a thin, durable
> Internet terminal / book reader with a 10 hour battery that does color and
> video and can have Internet access anywhere?  Sounds like a fundamental
> learning tool to me.

Not to me. I'm learning calculus right now. My learning is not aided
by this computer, nor would it be aided if I only had the screen part
of this laptop, and was able to sit on a couch or something. It would
make absolutely no difference. What matters most, for me, is sitting
down with the book, and doing exercises. For now, I happen to like
writing them on paper. Maybe my children will like writing them on
computers via advanced writing input; perhaps, and that could be cool,
and when the day comes I will consider it, but at the moment it would
do nothing but waste my time.

And guess what; that method is *personal*. It may not apply to you. If
so, fine, if it does, then fine too. But, as if it needs to be said,
there are different learning methods that people can try, and some
work better than others; and sometimes there are general patterns that
work well for all. If someone comes up with a device that aids a
general learning pattern, then maybe I can use it, but for now the
ultimate device exists: pencil and paper and a friend to talk to.

> sdw


More information about the FoRK mailing list