Apple's Jobs addresses critics, new product directions

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    And yet my parents taught me that the end does not justify the means.



    Hmmm.... I wonder if that is perhaps too simplistic an interpretation of what your parents taught you.



    Let me ask you two questions:



    1) If you were a recipient of, say, Gates Foundation funds for malaria reduction, you are saying you would refuse it because it was tainted, having resulted from monopoly profits?



    2) Which is better: These ill-gotten gains (obtained through less-than desirable 'means') are diverted to socially desirable 'ends' -- I don't want to get into an argument over what is 'socially desirable,' so let's assume, for the sake of argument that we agree on it -- or not at all?



    If I understand you correctly, your answer to (1) is "yes," and to (2) "not at all"?
  • Reply 22 of 29
    Mac OS X is balanced by design. A stripped down OS is unbalanced and creates a void that will invariably be filled by third parties with solutions of varying quality, and integration and usability.

    By having one OS, Apple leads by strengthening its OS at a time when many ask the question, "What defines an OS? What is an operating system?" Apple respects the whole, and thus defines it.
  • Reply 23 of 29
    Each OS is designed in relation to the other OSes. They do not exist in a vacuum.

    With one OS, Apple has more creative freedom. New users and developers are encouraged to upgrade. The value of the upgrade is greater. It is the new development platform. Many will upgrade. There will be innovation and growth.

    If an older OS has more share then the new, that could hinder growth of the new platform, i would think.
  • Reply 24 of 29
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Hmmm.... I wonder if that is perhaps too simplistic an interpretation of what your parents taught you.



    Let me ask you two questions:



    1) If you were a recipient of, say, Gates Foundation funds for malaria reduction, you are saying you would refuse it because it was tainted, having resulted from monopoly profits?



    2) Which is better: These ill-gotten gains (obtained through less-than desirable 'means') are diverted to socially desirable 'ends' -- I don't want to get into an argument over what is 'socially desirable,' so let's assume, for the sake of argument that we agree on it -- or not at all?



    If I understand you correctly, your answer to (1) is "yes," and to (2) "not at all"?



    Personally I thinks its your interpretation that is too simplistic. Of course the answer to (1) is 'no' the funds should be accepted, BUT, that act has NO reflection on BG as a person or his actions. His previous actions are not justified just because of this.



    Re (2) again, given the fact that the 'gains' exist they can/should be used as best they can but again that doesn't make the holder someone to put forth as a shining example.



    It could very well be argued that these 'socially desirable ends' would have been better served if BG had not abused his position in the first place, thereby making computation resources more affordable to everyone years ago thereby improving education and reducing malaria even further than through the current path.



    Hence the 'ends don't justify the means'.
  • Reply 25 of 29
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider


    Jobs admitted that .Mac had fallen behind. "We have not achieved our full potential," he said, adding that the company planned to soon release a new set of initiatives for .Mac



    I bloddy hope so, it's fallen behind like a slow cow. The existing service should be free. They should rename is '.Slack'
  • Reply 26 of 29
    jamezogjamezog Posts: 163member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check," he said. "If that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    BAM! Total Microsoft body-SLAM! Gates looks woozy, and Ballmer ineffectually throws a chair into the ring from the corner! 9.0,9.5, and a 10.0 from the judge from Romania!!!



  • Reply 27 of 29
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    Personally I thinks its your interpretation that is too simplistic. Of course the answer to (1) is 'no' the funds should be accepted, BUT, that act has NO reflection on BG as a person or his actions. His previous actions are not justified just because of this.



    Re (2) again, given the fact that the 'gains' exist they can/should be used as best they can but again that doesn't make the holder someone to put forth as a shining example.



    It could very well be argued that these 'socially desirable ends' would have been better served if BG had not abused his position in the first place, thereby making computation resources more affordable to everyone years ago thereby improving education and reducing malaria even further than through the current path.



    Hence the 'ends don't justify the means'.



    Let me just suggest that you actually read what I originally wrote, before making attributions to things that I never said (or implied), such as "[BG's] actions are justified," or "[BG] is a shining example" etc.



    My main point is, I do think that SJ is a bit chintzy with his wealth. Of course, that is based on what is publicly known, so I admit I could be misjudging him based on what he does in private and in quiet.
  • Reply 28 of 29
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Jeez, BG is a hard-nosed geek that made good. Nothing overly sinister about him and what he does with his money is altruistic.



    "Monopolistic practices" brought computing down from the ivory and corporate towers to the masses. What? Do folks really think that if IBM retained dominance that the world would be a better place? Or even Apple?



    Folks whine for Netscape, Sun and even Apple. They had their chance and blew it. Had they not they would be Google...and don't believe that Google is THAT much a better corporate citizen than MS. In fact their lawyers are very bit as effective as that of Microsoft and they are equally unafraid to use their dominating status.



    Vinea
  • Reply 29 of 29
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Jeez, BG is a hard-nosed geek that made good. Nothing overly sinister about him and what he does with his money is altruistic.



    "Monopolistic practices" brought computing down from the ivory and corporate towers to the masses. What? Do folks really think that if IBM retained dominance that the world would be a better place? Or even Apple?



    Folks whine for Netscape, Sun and even Apple. They had their chance and blew it. Had they not they would be Google...and don't believe that Google is THAT much a better corporate citizen than MS. In fact their lawyers are very bit as effective as that of Microsoft and they are equally unafraid to use their dominating status.



    Vinea



    I agree 100% with your sentiments, sir!
Sign In or Register to comment.