If you want to argue over what is or is not "natural," I think there's a case to be made that things like monopolists, dictators, oppression, and violence are more "natural" than free markets, democracy, cooperation, and peace. In nature, it's a brutish battle to the death for survival. It has only been through human civilization that these other ideas (free markets, democracy, etc) have come into being. I certainly prefer the artificial human construct of peace than the natural state of conflict. <...>
Says someone who has never studied nature, or even read many articles. Many/most animals and insects cooperate - some even between species - scarcity of resource leads to conflict for sure, but so many operate as packs, herds, pods and more. (There was relatively recent documented cases of humpback whales defending many other species from Orcas, even calling in reinforcements and extended standoffs, while reading about the recent ones it's mentioned that such things have been noticed for decades)
"Current management at Microsoft has mostly corrected course" - what? they have abandoned phones and most mobile devices other than 2-in-1 devices like the Surface. They have refocused on server & cloud more than anything. I guess the cloud part could be the corrected course - the rest is just defending monopolies.
If you want to argue over what is or is not "natural," I think there's a case to be made that things like monopolists, dictators, oppression, and violence are more "natural" than free markets, democracy, cooperation, and peace. In nature, it's a brutish battle to the death for survival. It has only been through human civilization that these other ideas (free markets, democracy, etc) have come into being. I certainly prefer the artificial human construct of peace than the natural state of conflict.
Nature is not so simplistic as you portray. There are many symbiotic relationships that exist in natural, evolved alliances among completely separate species, between animals and plants, the fish that dart in and out of sharks’ mouths to pick out stick bits of food that might cause decay or injury to the shark, for one example. For each cuckoo bird there is a cooperative pairing, and from all of this a naturally balanced ecosystem is formed.
It is humans and our imagined realities, our shared stories, of corporations and money and other fictional realities that now determine the fate of the natural world and the natural ecosystem. Very little of what we do, from conflict to cooperation, turns out in favor of the greater ecosystem to which we decreasingly see ourselves as a part. And that will be to the detriment of ourselves and all we share this earth with. There is no distinction as you would make it; the greater distinction is human versus natural. Period.
I will always hate Microsoft for all the time I spent trying to troubleshoot my Windows PCs in the 1990s. The funny thing is, I was an investor and big advocate at the time
Yeah likewise, I spent my youth first fiddling with AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files, then constantly troubleshooting Windows and, inevitably, countless hours on the fallback: “just re-install Windows”. (I also lived on Red Oak Lane - great handle!).
In college I managed labs of both Windows and Macs. Today I make most of my money with enterprise Windows development, but as I no longer build gaming rigs I switched everything at home to Mac long ago. Re-installing the OS is not an issue
Quote: This Android ideology seeks to claim legitimacy for the Google empire by citing the history of Windows PCs. That allows it to portray Apple, the only significant phone maker not using Android, as being in the same position it was during the rise of Microsoft's monopoly over PCs: a sort of oddball that's on the brink of doom, which will soon be entirely taken over by commodity because of the natural law of "good enough" mediocracy established by Windows precedent.
Says no one but a blogger or two and maybe a few disconnected fans.
So who is this "it" you refer to, the presumed spokesperson for "Android" who is predicting Apple's doom? Otherwise I like the article, well argued.
Oh look, a history revisionist. Sorry, but “Apple is going to get creamed by Android just like it did by Windows” or “Windows all over again” is something I read from forum goers countless times. Who are you trying to fool?
Quote: This Android ideology seeks to claim legitimacy for the Google empire by citing the history of Windows PCs. That allows it to portray Apple, the only significant phone maker not using Android, as being in the same position it was during the rise of Microsoft's monopoly over PCs: a sort of oddball that's on the brink of doom, which will soon be entirely taken over by commodity because of the natural law of "good enough" mediocracy established by Windows precedent.
Says no one but a blogger or two and maybe a few disconnected fans.
So who is this "it" you refer to, the presumed spokesperson for "Android" who is predicting Apple's doom?
So this is basically just another long worded “editorial” from DED which can be boiled down to whining about media coverage of Apple.
With your equally predictable commentary to tell the world “I hate DED columns! When’s the next one out so I can comment on it immediately?”
Somebody has issues. If you don’t like the column, who is forcing you to read them? Are you OK?
Also, no need for scare quotes around “editorial” — that’s exactly what opinion columns are. It’s an editorial. See, they even use that as a tag on the story.
Amen. Well said. As I sit with a 4 year old Mac Pro that runs as a desktop/laptop and a 2year old iPhone,I think of the countless Microsoft based computers I have had in the last 20 years. One year was all i could use a winTel computer, then it was out dated. Now I can go three with no disk formatting, or any unneeded care. They just work. thanks for putting MS in the can where it should be.
Indeed this. My desktop iMac is a loaded 2011. I still use it to run VMs and develop on. This is crazy.
Will likely finally upgrade in the next 6 months. Catalina looks worth it.
An absurdly long article to support a subjective opinion. It's clear that Gates viewed Apple and Microsoft as rivals for the 30 years leading in the iPhone launch, and thus viewed the two as natural competitors in the nascent smartphone market. Whether Microsoft could or couldn't compete for whatever reason doesn't change that.
Quote: This Android ideology seeks to claim legitimacy for the Google empire by citing the history of Windows PCs. That allows it to portray Apple, the only significant phone maker not using Android, as being in the same position it was during the rise of Microsoft's monopoly over PCs: a sort of oddball that's on the brink of doom, which will soon be entirely taken over by commodity because of the natural law of "good enough" mediocracy established by Windows precedent.
Says no one but a blogger or two and maybe a few disconnected fans.
So who is this "it" you refer to, the presumed spokesperson for "Android" who is predicting Apple's doom? Otherwise I like the article, well argued.
Oh look, a history revisionist. Sorry, but “Apple is going to get creamed by Android just like it did by Windows” or “Windows all over again” is something I read from forum goers countless times. Who are you trying to fool?
Oh look, someone more interested in trolling than honest rebuttal.
Yup, exactly as I said, and you mentioning a couple of commenters on some forum as your "proof" is exactly my point. "Android says Apple is doomed" it is not. Check back in when you have something more convincing.
“Before Windows PCs, home computing vendors including Apple, Acorn, Atari, and Commodore all built complete systems using integrated, internally developed software and hardware, often right down to their own custom silicon.”
For those who weren’t born yet when the Commodore PET 2001 was introduced in the 1970’s, I need to correct the above statement. The PET (Personal Electronic Transactor) was (1) based on a standard 1 MHz 6502 8-bit microprocessor (the same processor family that Apple used for many years before the switch to Intel), and (2) used the Microsoft qBASIC interpreter (ROM based) for programming the PET in BASIC. Of, course, the user could also program the PET using 6502 assembly language, which became useful when the PET memory was expanded by the user from the standard 8K to 40K using 32K memory board kits that were available from 3rd parties. For the curious out there, the board used 16 16K x 1 bit dynamic RAM chips at $8.50 each (1978 dollars) to create the 32K x 8-bit additional memory. Since the qBASIC interpreter could only access up to 32K RAM, the user could push machine code into the additional 8K.
The PET did have a custom boot ROM (no toggle switch booting required like the Altair 8800), but most of the other components were “off the shelf” and could be easily purchased at Radio Shack.
I’m certainly not a Microsoft fan (proud Apple user/customer since 1981), but I just want the historical record to be correct.
Kudos for writing such a coherent and 99,999% correct piece.
I promoted most of Apple products and software development from 2000 (start of OSX) onwards. My ultra techie collogues loathed and some even despised me for that, because it was a commercial US enterprises with obvious only moneymaking intensions. This was the common notion intellectuals and universities had at the time. I was even criticized for ‘defending’ Apple while not even working for them. I made clear that I wasn't defending Apple but simply correcting the false notion that was put forward and thus defending ‘what was true’ and what was innovative and new. What hampered these techies was that they didn't expect something good from Apple, and as an ultra techie had obviously better ideas about computers. Fact of the matter was that they had no clue about innovation and innovative products and as a basic handicap (née, politically correct: challenged) no taste at all. When word came out that Apple would release a device with only touch input people reacted that this would be - instead of a revolution - a bad mistake and Apple would of course sell nil. (Really no kidding!) Gloating at any perceived misstep (of Apple) they tried to mask their constant wrong. My aim was to promote a real alternative to the dark ages of Microsofts stranglehold, its ugliness and its more than dreadful MCS certification. I didn't succeed, but luckily Apple has and the world is a much better place because of that, Mr Jobs was right: it really boils down to taste.
Quote: Says no one but a blogger or two and maybe a few disconnected fans.
So who is this "it" you refer to, the presumed spokesperson for "Android" who is predicting Apple's doom? Otherwise I like the article, well argued.
Oh look, a history revisionist. Sorry, but “Apple is going to get creamed by Android just like it did by Windows” or “Windows all over again” is something I read from forum goers countless times. Who are you trying to fool?
Oh look, someone more interested in trolling than honest rebuttal.
Yup, exactly as I said, and you mentioning a couple of commenters on some forum as your "proof" is exactly my point. "Android says Apple is doomed" it is not. Check back in when you have something more convincing.
“Before Windows PCs, home computing vendors including Apple, Acorn, Atari, and Commodore all built complete systems using integrated, internally developed software and hardware, often right down to their own custom silicon.”
For those who weren’t born yet when the Commodore PET 2001 was introduced in the 1970’s, I need to correct the above statement. The PET (Personal Electronic Transactor) was (1) based on a standard 1 MHz 6502 8-bit microprocessor (the same processor family that Apple used for many years before the switch to Intel), and (2) used the Microsoft qBASIC interpreter (ROM based) for programming the PET in BASIC. Of, course, the user could also program the PET using 6502 assembly language, which became useful when the PET memory was expanded by the user from the standard 8K to 40K using 32K memory board kits that were available from 3rd parties. For the curious out there, the board used 16 16K x 1 bit dynamic RAM chips at $8.50 each (1978 dollars) to create the 32K x 8-bit additional memory. Since the qBASIC interpreter could only access up to 32K RAM, the user could push machine code into the additional 8K.
The PET did have a custom boot ROM (no toggle switch booting required like the Altair 8800), but most of the other components were “off the shelf” and could be easily purchased at Radio Shack.
I’m certainly not a Microsoft fan (proud Apple user/customer since 1981), but I just want the historical record to be correct.
Yes the PET was pretty basic in 1977, but Commodore's much more popular Vic20 was in fact named after its custom MOS video chip. And the C64, which was the most popular home computer of its day, made notable use of custom silicon for sound and graphics. The next generation Amiga was basically a video game console, with advanced graphics and video custom silicon, and also ran its own custom multitasking OS at a time when Commodore had lots of licensing options. Same with Atari ST.
As the home PC industry hit its stride, there were so many different, incompatible systems in play, each with their own hs and OS, that generic Intel-Windows PCs stood out as a compatibility solution to the problems of finding apps that could work on a given system.
Then, as integration became more important in driving costs down and proprietary value up, Apple's OS X and iOS created a market alternative to generic Windows and swung the pendulum back towards custom integrated systems.
Quote: Says no one but a blogger or two and maybe a few disconnected fans.
So who is this "it" you refer to, the presumed spokesperson for "Android" who is predicting Apple's doom? Otherwise I like the article, well argued.
Oh look, a history revisionist. Sorry, but “Apple is going to get creamed by Android just like it did by Windows” or “Windows all over again” is something I read from forum goers countless times. Who are you trying to fool?
Oh look, someone more interested in trolling than honest rebuttal.
Yup, exactly as I said, and you mentioning a couple of commenters on some forum as your "proof" is exactly my point. "Android says Apple is doomed" it is not. Check back in when you have something more convincing.
He's right, you're wrong of course. Read a bit.
Please explain since you already know I do my research. Give me examples of what I missed that proves you and he are correct. I'm not afraid of being "corrected" and enjoy reading things I'm not familiar with. Have at it. It it your assertion to prove, not mine to disprove.
Wow, this is a full DED broadside attack on a floundering and apologizing Gates. I can’t disagree with it.
I still have a lot of respect for Bill G as a developer in his day, for some his humanitarian causes, and for the respect he finally showed to Steve Jobs during Steve’s final days. But Bill G, like many Microsofties, is seriously infected with a highly contagious strain of self-respect-eating hubris and blind faith belief in Microsoft Exceptionalism (ME), like it’s a real thing. Sure, history has shown us that there was a real ME, but it was a steaming turd pile OS spawned from a burning dumpster fire and it was not even remotely exceptional, much like Microsoft in general.
Please explain since you already know I do my research. Give me examples of what I missed that proves you and he are correct. I'm not afraid of being "corrected" and enjoy reading things I'm not familiar with. Have at it. It it your assertion to prove, not mine to disprove.
Nobody has to exert any effort to disprove your vacuous statements made without any evidence.
Please explain since you already know I do my research. Give me examples of what I missed that proves you and he are correct. I'm not afraid of being "corrected" and enjoy reading things I'm not familiar with. Have at it. It it your assertion to prove, not mine to disprove.
Nobody has to exert any effort to disprove your vacuous statements made without any evidence.
Oh.so you just made some statement as a lead-in to arguing a point, but there was no factual basis for it in the first place. Fair enough. It's your article and you can say whatever you wish, even use a flawed hypothesis or false premise. They both work.
While Windows was "good enough" for the PC, it was lightyears away from being good enough for mobile, and that's what killed it from being ubiquitous.
Why make excuses for hot garbage?
Everything should have good UI, there's nothing about "mobile" that necessetitates even-better-UI except maybe the danger of walking into a street while trying to reset out of a BSOD.
Comments
Many/most animals and insects cooperate - some even between species - scarcity of resource leads to conflict for sure, but so many operate as packs, herds, pods and more. (There was relatively recent documented cases of humpback whales defending many other species from Orcas, even calling in reinforcements and extended standoffs, while reading about the recent ones it's mentioned that such things have been noticed for decades)
"Current management at Microsoft has mostly corrected course" - what? they have abandoned phones and most mobile devices other than 2-in-1 devices like the Surface. They have refocused on server & cloud more than anything. I guess the cloud part could be the corrected course - the rest is just defending monopolies.
It is humans and our imagined realities, our shared stories, of corporations and money and other fictional realities that now determine the fate of the natural world and the natural ecosystem. Very little of what we do, from conflict to cooperation, turns out in favor of the greater ecosystem to which we decreasingly see ourselves as a part. And that will be to the detriment of ourselves and all we share this earth with. There is no distinction as you would make it; the greater distinction is human versus natural. Period.
In college I managed labs of both Windows and Macs. Today I make most of my money with enterprise Windows development, but as I no longer build gaming rigs I switched everything at home to Mac long ago. Re-installing the OS is not an issue
Oh look, a history revisionist. Sorry, but “Apple is going to get creamed by Android just like it did by Windows” or “Windows all over again” is something I read from forum goers countless times. Who are you trying to fool?
With your equally predictable commentary to tell the world “I hate DED columns! When’s the next one out so I can comment on it immediately?”
Somebody has issues. If you don’t like the column, who is forcing you to read them? Are you OK?
Also, no need for scare quotes around “editorial” — that’s exactly what opinion columns are. It’s an editorial. See, they even use that as a tag on the story.
Indeed this. My desktop iMac is a loaded 2011. I still use it to run VMs and develop on. This is crazy.
Will likely finally upgrade in the next 6 months. Catalina looks worth it.
That’s right. I said pen, even though I suspect he wrote it on a computer.
Yup, exactly as I said, and you mentioning a couple of commenters on some forum as your "proof" is exactly my point. "Android says Apple is doomed" it is not. Check back in when you have something more convincing.
For those who weren’t born yet when the Commodore PET 2001 was introduced in the 1970’s, I need to correct the above statement. The PET (Personal Electronic Transactor) was (1) based on a standard 1 MHz 6502 8-bit microprocessor (the same processor family that Apple used for many years before the switch to Intel), and (2) used the Microsoft qBASIC interpreter (ROM based) for programming the PET in BASIC. Of, course, the user could also program the PET using 6502 assembly language, which became useful when the PET memory was expanded by the user from the standard 8K to 40K using 32K memory board kits that were available from 3rd parties. For the curious out there, the board used 16 16K x 1 bit dynamic RAM chips at $8.50 each (1978 dollars) to create the 32K x 8-bit additional memory. Since the qBASIC interpreter could only access up to 32K RAM, the user could push machine code into the additional 8K.
The PET did have a custom boot ROM (no toggle switch booting required like the Altair 8800), but most of the other components were “off the shelf” and could be easily purchased at Radio Shack.
I’m certainly not a Microsoft fan (proud Apple user/customer since 1981), but I just want the historical record to be correct.
I promoted most of Apple products and software development from 2000 (start of OSX) onwards.
My ultra techie collogues loathed and some even despised me for that, because it was a commercial US enterprises with obvious only moneymaking intensions. This was the common notion intellectuals and universities had at the time.
I was even criticized for ‘defending’ Apple while not even working for them.
I made clear that I wasn't defending Apple but simply correcting the false notion that was put forward and thus defending ‘what was true’ and what was innovative and new.
What hampered these techies was that they didn't expect something good from Apple, and as an ultra techie had obviously better ideas about computers.
Fact of the matter was that they had no clue about innovation and innovative products and as a basic handicap (née, politically correct: challenged) no taste at all.
When word came out that Apple would release a device with only touch input people reacted that this would be - instead of a revolution - a bad mistake and Apple would of course sell nil. (Really no kidding!)
Gloating at any perceived misstep (of Apple) they tried to mask their constant wrong.
My aim was to promote a real alternative to the dark ages of Microsofts stranglehold, its ugliness and its more than dreadful MCS certification.
I didn't succeed, but luckily Apple has and the world is a much better place because of that, Mr Jobs was right: it really boils down to taste.
Yes the PET was pretty basic in 1977, but Commodore's much more popular Vic20 was in fact named after its custom MOS video chip. And the C64, which was the most popular home computer of its day, made notable use of custom silicon for sound and graphics. The next generation Amiga was basically a video game console, with advanced graphics and video custom silicon, and also ran its own custom multitasking OS at a time when Commodore had lots of licensing options. Same with Atari ST.
As the home PC industry hit its stride, there were so many different, incompatible systems in play, each with their own hs and OS, that generic Intel-Windows PCs stood out as a compatibility solution to the problems of finding apps that could work on a given system.
Then, as integration became more important in driving costs down and proprietary value up, Apple's OS X and iOS created a market alternative to generic Windows and swung the pendulum back towards custom integrated systems.
I still have a lot of respect for Bill G as a developer in his day, for some his humanitarian causes, and for the respect he finally showed to Steve Jobs during Steve’s final days. But Bill G, like many Microsofties, is seriously infected with a highly contagious strain of self-respect-eating hubris and blind faith belief in Microsoft Exceptionalism (ME), like it’s a real thing. Sure, history has shown us that there was a real ME, but it was a steaming turd pile OS spawned from a burning dumpster fire and it was not even remotely exceptional, much like Microsoft in general.
Everything should have good UI, there's nothing about "mobile" that necessetitates even-better-UI except maybe the danger of walking into a street while trying to reset out of a BSOD.