Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 13th Apr 2013 20:14 UTC
In the News Martin Hedberg has interviewed Jean-Louis Gassee - founder of Be, Inc. and former Apple executive. We're looking at 45 minutes (part 1, 2, 3, and 4) of talk about operating systems an their future, so sit down, relaxe, and enjoy.
Permalink for comment 558428
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Martin Hedberg
by jared_wilkes on Sun 14th Apr 2013 12:32 UTC in reply to "Martin Hedberg"
Member since:

I disagree however with garyd's statement that my doubt about Apples strategy have it's foundation in a GNU-cult mentality.

Maybe garyd is incorrect about the source of your feelings, but you certainly seem to be coming from one point of view, think that point of view is correct, and are unable to see the value of another point of view and because of this, you provide little valuable supporting evidence and end up stymied by the more thoughtful Gassée time and time again. So it seems very much appropriate to call your perspective and interview dogmatic.

What is really bothering me about Apple is that they are dictating what people shall use their platform to.

Many people do not feel this is so. They understand that Apple may have a preferred way that they think is simpler and easier that you should use (and they value this), or you can find a third party solution that isn't as simple and easy but provides more flexibility or you can choose another platform.

If Microsoft would have done this everyone would have been upset, but not when Apple does it. The examples I mentioned is not the only examples of their destructive closed strategy.

I didn't hear a single example that I felt held up whatsoever. What examples are you referring to?

Remember when you couldn't replace the battery in the iPod? It took a lawsuit to get them change their minds.

No, I do not. I remember a class action regarding defective batteries. I do not recall a lawsuit about being able to replace batteries yourself. I know for a fact that the situation remains unchanged: batteries are not user replaceable but can be by Apple or unsupported third parties or by individuals. This situation arose shortly after the original release of the iPod and remains so a decade later with all of their i-devices.

What happened to their "Think Different" motto?

It remains very much alive, with Apple doing things differently from how you'd like them to be and competitors copying Apple more than vice versa (centralized/curated app stores, agency models for selling content and apps, greater hardware/software integration, hardware having non-user replaceable batteries, full touchscreen, etc). What about "Think Different" to you means: open source and open hardware, the way Martin Hedberg would like it.

If a vendor treated me like that I would feel humiliated and angry.

This is what garyd is talking about. Can you get outside your own feelings to appreciate that a hundred million people feel diffferently than you?

When it comes to strategy and execution that Mr Gassée mentioned, I would like to say that there are times when they can't be separated from each other.

That's a theory. A theory that is unsubstantiated. Apple's history defies this theory again and again and again.

"Closed Platform" + "Success" + "Company Politics" = "Abuse of locked in customers". Just the same way as a government can't go unchecked. This applies even if the company is reasonably ethical.

If you want a temperant discussion, maybe you should use another word besides abuse. You come off as dogmatic, uncompromising, and peevish.

Read the history of IBM, DEC and Microsoft.

The strategies and histories of these 3 companies themselves are so divergent — not to mention how divergent each of these 3 are from Apple — I have no idea what point you want to make. Not to mention that, I presume, 2 of these examples occurred 30 years ago.

This nearly unavoidable cycle of abuse in closed platforms is something people in general and companies remember. As Mr Gassée himself said: You can't fool everyone in the long run.

There you go again... You also seem to only be looking at history through your biased lens again.

Maybe you don't agree with me on this but let's have a less tempered discussion about this topic.

You mean more tempered, less tempers — but that's just language. I think the discussion is occurring, but people are pointing out that you are losing because of dogma, lack of evidence, or a completely and utterly biased view of the evidence that contradicts your claims.

Reply Parent Score: 3