"According to Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs, the tech guru was opposed to allowing third-party to run natively on iPhone — and when pressured to do so by developers and others, he had a simple answer: Develop your own web apps that will work on the new platform.
And yet Apple was there in year 2 with a fleshed out SDK. That was in obvious development even when Jobs was telling people they didn't need an SDK.
Yup, that's unprecedented. It's not like he once derided watching movies on small screens until Apple magically produced the iPod Video. He would never downplay something until Apple was ready for it, then reverse and promote the crap out of a previously counter position.
Yup. Pressure by developers is what did it. Because if there was one thing he was really known for was bowing to outside pressure, polling and "wisdom of the crowd".
Seriously? Is this really an Apple fanboy site?
And before you rely solely on that gawd awful Isaacson biography how about getting familiar with his real life actions, statements and mannerisms. And maybe reading a few other biographies too. Isaacson was a horrible biographer for someone like Jobs - he didn't understand tech at all and missed a lot of crucial context.
Did you read what DED had to say at the time? He dismissed an App Store too. I linked his article from the fall of Apple's iPhone launch year, a few months after the phone went on sale.
That’s false. There were articles exploring what Apple might do on RoughlyDrafted, both in terms of opening up like the Mac and remaining very restrictive like iPod games had been. In the end, Apple opened up an SDK (as Jobs said Apple was working on the specifics of back at the shareholder meeting in Feb 2007) but it remained far more “closed” than any previous computing platform.
You don’t know anything apart from attacking the writer. It’s all you do here, malicious character assasination. That’s why I have zero respect for anything you write
Hang on. What malicious character assasination?
You do realise that gatorguy and many others often skip DED articles completely. I and others really pass on that style of writing that has no balance, is utterly lop-sided and constantly takes stabs at rivals.
You may see the odd pick up on a piece but more often than not, replies are to the comments not the article or DED himself.
Some people like it, others hate it, while others just skip them altogether.
Each to their own, but malicious character assasination is just wrong
They literally said “Did you read what DED had to say at the time?”
And that equates to 'malicious character assasination'?
No, I was referring to you saying “more often than not, replies are to the comments not the article or DED himself.”
'More often than not' doesn't make an absolute.
I rarely pay attention to who writes an article from the outset. Each article therefore gets a clean slate from my side.
However, there comes a point sometimes where you stop and say to yourself, 'something isn't right here'. For many reasons. That's when I view the piece from the main page and see who the author is. If it's DED and an editorial piece I normally stop right there, but on occasion even I will try to read it through.
Mostly though I simply stop.
The comments may have something of interest so it's worth checking them out.
You do realise that gatorguy and many others often skip DED articles completely. I and others really pass on that style of writing that has no balance, is utterly lop-sided and constantly takes stabs at rivals.
You may see the odd pick up on a piece but more often than not, replies are to the comments not the article or DED himself.
Some people like it, others hate it, while others just skip them altogether.
Each to their own, but malicious character assasination is just wrong
They literally said “Did you read what DED had to say at the time?”
And that equates to 'malicious character assasination'?
No that's a lie. Gator falsely represented what was written at the time. He exists to assassinate the character of AI writers.
You do realise that gatorguy and many others often skip DED articles completely. I and others really pass on that style of writing that has no balance, is utterly lop-sided and constantly takes stabs at rivals.
You may see the odd pick up on a piece but more often than not, replies are to the comments not the article or DED himself.
Some people like it, others hate it, while others just skip them altogether.
Each to their own, but malicious character assasination is just wrong
They literally said “Did you read what DED had to say at the time?”
And that equates to 'malicious character assasination'?
No that's a lie. Gator falsely represented what was written at the time. He exists to assassinate the character of AI writers.
I LIED ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID AT THE TIME?? That's a bold claim. I gave our readers a link to what you said at the time to read for themselves. That's your "false representation"?
Remember it was you who decided you wanted to have an engagement with me not the other way around. Far from setting out to do a "character assassination" (BTW, calling another member here a liar seems like a fitting example of what it actually is) I try to avoid having discussions with you.
Daniel, IMHO you're a darn good writer. You have a knack with phrases, and do very well clipping together various facts and data points to crafting your own story about what it all means. Some of your wordplay is epic stuff. As a writer of opinion pieces you're good. If you then stoop to silly name-calling and playground antics when responding to others members here I think you do yourself a great disservice. Maybe it's part of your schick, or maybe it's really who you are. I've no idea, but it doesn't matter. Either way you make it way too easy for some readers to dismiss with "Oh look, another DED hit-piece" what you took so much effort to craft into an editorial. If you want to be taken seriously outside of Apple fan blogs you don't help your cause by insulting others and calling them liars, or trolls or just making something up about them instead of using your obvious intelligence to explain why they are wrong and you right.
So if you want to argue with others about your opinions, and sling around some juvenile names and unsavory accusations to do so fine. Leave me out of it if you don't mind and I promise to continue avoiding you. Trying to drag me into some thread distraction serves no good purpose.
Comments
I rarely pay attention to who writes an article from the outset. Each article therefore gets a clean slate from my side.
However, there comes a point sometimes where you stop and say to yourself, 'something isn't right here'. For many reasons. That's when I view the piece from the main page and see who the author is. If it's DED and an editorial piece I normally stop right there, but on occasion even I will try to read it through.
Mostly though I simply stop.
The comments may have something of interest so it's worth checking them out.
Like I said, each to their own.
I gave our readers a link to what you said at the time to read for themselves. That's your "false representation"?
Remember it was you who decided you wanted to have an engagement with me not the other way around. Far from setting out to do a "character assassination" (BTW, calling another member here a liar seems like a fitting example of what it actually is) I try to avoid having discussions with you.
Daniel, IMHO you're a darn good writer. You have a knack with phrases, and do very well clipping together various facts and data points to crafting your own story about what it all means. Some of your wordplay is epic stuff. As a writer of opinion pieces you're good. If you then stoop to silly name-calling and playground antics when responding to others members here I think you do yourself a great disservice. Maybe it's part of your schick, or maybe it's really who you are. I've no idea, but it doesn't matter. Either way you make it way too easy for some readers to dismiss with "Oh look, another DED hit-piece" what you took so much effort to craft into an editorial. If you want to be taken seriously outside of Apple fan blogs you don't help your cause by insulting others and calling them liars, or trolls or just making something up about them instead of using your obvious intelligence to explain why they are wrong and you right.
So if you want to argue with others about your opinions, and sling around some juvenile names and unsavory accusations to do so fine. Leave me out of it if you don't mind and I promise to continue avoiding you. Trying to drag me into some thread distraction serves no good purpose.