Fuck you apple

[Barrister]

Personal computers existed before Jobs and his impact was more on appearance than function.

Uhm yes, that's the fucking point. A Zegna suit fulfills the same purpose as a burlap sack. A Manolo Blahnik shoe fulfills the same purpose as a wooden clog. Yet noone sane claims that there is no difference between them (or that the difference is functionality only).

In fact, the aesthetics plays an important part as to why people choose Apple products, so discounting this as inconsequential is rather silly. The genius of Jobs was the realization that computers and computer-like products can be a status symbol/accessory/functional art work as much as a car, a pair of shoes, clothes or furniture can be.

I think Jobs is so hated (in addition to being so loved) because he took computers out of the dank, drab caves of computer nerds and gave it to the lofty, flighty show rooms of the artists and super models. Ritchie was a dwarf, Jobs was an elf. The twain shall never meet or see eye to eye.

When discussing Jobs legacy, only you would start and finish with design.   

[grumbler]

Personal computers existed before Jobs and his impact was more on appearance than function.

Uhm yes, that's the fucking point. A Zegna suit fulfills the same purpose as a burlap sack. A Manolo Blahnik shoe fulfills the same purpose as a wooden clog. Yet noone sane claims that there is no difference between them (or that the difference is functionality only).

I have read a lot of CC's strawmen, and yet none of them have recently been so far off as this one.

hen you invent a strawman, invent one that makes sense.  The argument that a "Zegna suit fulfills the same purpose as a burlap sack" is so obviously fucking stupid and wrong that it doesn't even qualify as a proper strawmman argument.

In fact, the aesthetics plays an important part as to why people choose Apple products, so discounting this as inconsequential is rather silly.

Not as silly as arguing that anyone says that aesthetics are inconsequential.  It is true that most people won't pay double the price for a product that is only esthetically different, but enough will that Apple is rich.

The genius of Jobs was the realization that computers and computer-like products can be a status symbol/accessory/functional art work as much as a car, a pair of shoes, clothes or furniture can be.

The genius of Jobs wasn't so much in realizing that people would pay a significant premium for aesthetics, but in designing an aesthetic that these people would embrace.  Lots of people failed at this.

I think Jobs is so hated (in addition to being so loved) because he took computers out of the dank, drab caves of computer nerds and gave it to the lofty, flighty show rooms of the artists and super models. Ritchie was a dwarf, Jobs was an elf. The twain shall never meet or see eye to eye.

I don't think you have a clue as to the actual significance of either man.  They didn't disagree on anything, insofar as I know, and they probably saw eye-to-eye on many things.  I think Jobs is "hated" (if he is at all hated) because he celebrated the triumph of form over substance.  Some people cannot stand that, I guess.

The analogy to make is that Ritchie built the house, and Jobs painted, furnished, and decorated all the rooms.  The house would sell without the superlative interior design work, but it wouldn't sell for nearly as much, and maybe not please its owners nearly as much.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that, without Ritchie, there would be no Mac or iPhone.  Without Jobs, there would be a Mac and iPhone but they wouldn't work as well or look so good.

[Razgovory]

I dunno, I would keep Potatoes in Zegna suit.  Zegna is that video game company right?

[DGuller]

Nothing beats a tracksuit, as long as it's well-tailored.

[grumbler]

You're getting blind-sided by focusing on Macs.  Macs are wonderful, and popularized the GUI, but yes by 1984 the personal computer was common, and the Mac was just another personal computer.

But go back to the Apple I and Apple II in the late 70s.  The personal computer existed only as a hobby, and required you to asseble it yourself (down to soldering the circuitboard).  It was Jobs and Woz who sold the first true personal computer.  When IBM came along with the IBM PC the Apple II (and a few others) had been around for several years.

I think you are getting blindsided by focusing on the IBM PC.  The PC was not the first PC IBM made, nor the first anyone but Apple made.  The IBM 5100 came out almost two years before even the Apple I, and the HP 9830 two years before that.  None of them were kits.

Jobs definitely was a genius at making things easy to use, and there is no question that the Apple II accelerated the acceptance of the PC as part of education and daily life, but all it did was accelerate a trend.  Before Jobs came along, PC use was growing.  Before Ritchie came alone, no one was even trying to write machine-codable-but-human-readable programming languages, as far as I can tell.  C was a real breakthrough, and, of course, Unix re-wrote the book.  Jobs never re-wrote the book.

[DGuller]

Another difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products.  The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.

[garbon]

Another difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products.  The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.

Isn't more like people simply don't realize they use Ritchie's products as they have never heard of him?

[Barrister]

You're getting blind-sided by focusing on Macs.  Macs are wonderful, and popularized the GUI, but yes by 1984 the personal computer was common, and the Mac was just another personal computer.

But go back to the Apple I and Apple II in the late 70s.  The personal computer existed only as a hobby, and required you to asseble it yourself (down to soldering the circuitboard).  It was Jobs and Woz who sold the first true personal computer.  When IBM came along with the IBM PC the Apple II (and a few others) had been around for several years.

I think you are getting blindsided by focusing on the IBM PC.  The PC was not the first PC IBM made, nor the first anyone but Apple made.  The IBM 5100 came out almost two years before even the Apple I, and the HP 9830 two years before that.  None of them were kits.

Jobs definitely was a genius at making things easy to use, and there is no question that the Apple II accelerated the acceptance of the PC as part of education and daily life, but all it did was accelerate a trend.  Before Jobs came along, PC use was growing.  Before Ritchie came alone, no one was even trying to write machine-codable-but-human-readable programming languages, as far as I can tell.  C was a real breakthrough, and, of course, Unix re-wrote the book.  Jobs never re-wrote the book.

Well, yes and no.  I mean certainly the personal computer didn't spring fully formed out of Jobs' parents garage, and was a part of a whole scene.

But you picked what are perhaps not the best examples.  Using wiki (just to annoy you too :p) the IBM was described as a "portable computer", and the HP as a "programmable calculator".  However, on the wiki page of "history of personal computers" it mentions what are perhaps better counter-examples - the Commodore PET and the TRS-80.  However of those early computers it was the Apple II that dominated - up until IBM released the IBM PC.

And I have to say - Jobs did in fact re-write a lot of books.  He re-wrote the book on interacting with computers.  He re-wrote the book on cell phones.  He re-wrote the book on animated movies.  and he re-wrote the book on how you buy music.

[The Brain]

And they all suck.

[Razgovory]

Nothing beats a tracksuit, as long as it's well-tailored.

What is the deal with your people and track suits anyway?

[frunk]

Before Ritchie came alone, no one was even trying to write machine-codable-but-human-readable programming languages, as far as I can tell.

That's not entirely true.  The point of a programming language is to translate a human readable format into a machine readable format.  Even Assembly performs this function, although the human readable part is a bit of a stretch.  Fortran from the 50s used English language words.  C succeeded in combining legibility with a relatively small set of native commands and a format that permitted easy generation of native Assembly.

[DGuller]

Nothing beats a tracksuit, as long as it's well-tailored.

What is the deal with your people and track suits anyway?

It's something that tough guys wore, so everyone who fancied himself a tough guy or wanted to look like one wore it as well.  As to how that fashioned started in the first place, I do not know.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Vecna suit?

Just a hat and a glove.

I'd have thought a monocle and a glove.

[grumbler]

Another difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products.  The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.

The people who use Jobs' products but not Ritchie's are people who use the iPod without ever downloading a song.

The people who use use Ritchie's products but not Jobs' are people who use the internet on any computers or phones bar Apples'.

[grumbler]

And I have to say - Jobs did in fact re-write a lot of books.  He re-wrote the book on interacting with computers.  He re-wrote the book on cell phones.  He re-wrote the book on animated movies.  and he re-wrote the book on how you buy music.

Steve Jobs didn't re-write the book on interacting with computers, nor cell phones, nor animated movies.  Those are all done pretty much the way they have been done before Jobs got involved in them.  Music I am less sure of.  It seems to me that PtP preceded single-compressed-track pay downloads, but I cannot swear to it.  I don't much care for ganked music, if I am paying for it, so i don't follow that model.