> longer
> be accurate, and the resulting decision is the wrong one, too. So, as
> decision-making methods go, this doesn't sound too good.
>
People make decisions every day based on current information that is also
accurate, and the resulting decision is the wrong one, too. So, as
decision-making methods go, this doesn't sound too good.
> Then, it's (a) a mistake to say that the reason the BMW was bought was
> because you can plug in an iPod,
>
It isn't a mistake if that was the reason.
> (b) a mistake to overgeneralize from
> being
> able to plug in an iPod to being more innovative in general, and
>
I don't think it is an overgeneralization since it is certainly an
innovative feature and they were the first ones to do it.
>(c) a
> mistake to assume that these "innovative" features have any real value.
>
If anyone perceives them to have value then they do.
> For
> example, I plug my iPod into my VW Beetle every day I drive, using a $100
> add-on mounting kit with FM transmitter, so instead of buying a BMW I can
> spend my money elsewhere.
>
Of course, if you had a BMW, you could spend the same amount of money on the
connector kit and get seamless integration which gives you higher quality
sound, safer interaction i.e. you can change songs from your steering wheel
instead of from the IPod itself, the IPod is powered by your car, and it can
be hidden away avoiding messy wires. And that is just the IPod connector;
you should see the rain sensing wipers.
> Again, the innovation must have a certain value to make it worthwhile. In
> any case, your original statement didn't have anything to do with the Mac
> being an innovative platform - you said, and I quote, "The level of stress
> a
> developer puts on their desktop requires Unix underneath." Apparently, for
> many folks here including myself, this simply isn't true.
>
Well remember, you are unique; you don't get BSODs, viruses, Trojans, worms,
or networks saturated by elections and don't mind installing patches
regularly or preying the latest exploit will be fixed soon. Unfortunately,
millions of thers have a different experience with Windows. The fact that
Unix avoids much of this and that Apple was able to use it as the basis of
Mac OS X means that it has everything to do with be innovative; it's just
another example.
> Finally, I'll simply remind you that it wasn't until OS X that Macs
> supported preemptive multitasking! I guess that's innovation for you - I
> was
> running OS/2 2.1 back in late '93, and it had preemptive multitasking. Now
> that was an innovative platform, although the GUI was fugly.
>
Oh please, it is quite easy to cherry pick features that any particular OS
had back in the day that another one didn't.
> Then why bother? You've gone to a lot of effort, after all.
>
Typing a few emails isn't really effort. Besides you seem to be one of the
few people that actually makes me defend a position.
> You're absolutely right. Why should I? Unlike you, I don't care one way or
> the other about Microsoft as a company. They're no different from Apple or
> Oracle or any other tech company headed by a megalomaniac. I care about
> being able to do what I need to do. And since many potential clients also
> use MS products, why should I eschew them?
>
They are quite a bit different actually. Ask yourself the following
questions. How interesting is the technology in markets that Microsoft
dominates? How interesting is the technology in markets that Microsoft does
not?
Besides, what products your clients --both potential and not-- choose to use
as nothing to do with what you yourself use. There seem to be plenty of Mac
and Linux users developing for Microsoft-based products without any problem;
what makes you different?
-Matt
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
