Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 23:25 UTC, submitted by Chicken Blood
Apple The beauty of the internet is such that every opinion has become worthless; this goes doubly so for those with publish buttons on (relatively, we're humble) major websites. For every opinion, there's a matching counter-opinion, and that's great. Yesterday, we linked to an article by Mark Pilgrim about tinkerers and the iPad, and of course, someone was bound to disagree with that one.
Thread beginning with comment 407554
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The science has certainly progressed. Hardware has become exponentially more powerful. Research in engine efficiency and safety has grown by leaps and bounds. Yet the interactive and conceptual models that we use today are still fundamentally identical to those developed at Cadillac and introduced with the Cadillac Type 53 in 1916 [1].

Cars are still massive dangerous objects operated by flawed humans. We're still stuck taking expensive driving lessons, learning hundreds of road signs, traffic controller signals, and what not. Cars still operate as individual, unlinked objects, even thougn roads have clogged up and are infinitely more busy than they were in 1916.

That was the paradigm that was introduced with the Type 53, and 94 years later, even with all the staggering advances in technology, nothing has changed.

I call that stagnation and I also find it patently absurd.


Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Now that's Sniveling!
by cb_osn on Wed 3rd Feb 2010 10:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Now that's Sniveling! "
cb_osn Member since:

Impressive work for a car analogy, Thom.

Ignoring the fact that the functionality necessary for operating a vehicle is at least an order of magnitude less complex than that of an average modern computer program, I find issues with the automotive industry as well. We could discuss things like electric motors and continuously variable transmissions. Both have been available for years, provide increased efficiency and lower maintenance costs due to less wear of mechanical parts, yet both are still exceedingly rare on the streets.

Still, the deficiencies of one industry cannot excuse those of another.

Though I have to admit some confusion at your response. At the very least, I know you agree with me that organization, search, and sorting of content should be handled at the fundamental storage layer rather than having to rely on applications like iTunes and iPhoto. This same type of thing can be extrapolated to just about every area of contemporary user interfaces and data models where we find ourselves fighting against our computers to do things that at this point, the computers should be doing for us. At this time, Apple seems to be the only organization willing to begin addressing these sort of things. I won't say that they've been solved, but at least we're seeing some movement towards new solutions.

Coming back to the topic. I certainly don't wish for Apple branded devices to overtake the whole of computing. I too like to tinker and they are obviously not known for openness. But they are succeeding at breaking down a lot of long-standing barriers. And for that, I am appreciative.

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:

We're not talking about Apple providing a new search service: the problem we're talking about here is Apple producing less open devices, with arbitrarily restricted software - in many cases deliberately and maliciously crippled - and the worry that these types of restrictions, if perceived as normal by people who are children now, will inhibit the growth of the next generation of hackers. I do not want to see people start to just accept as normal not having control of your hardware or software, of having their media locked to a single device (or service), or blindly assume that what they're allowed to do with a device is the full extent of what it's capable of doing, or all they should really want it to do.

The fundamental problem here is that "Apple's approach is new and different" does. Not. Excuse. Aribtrary. And. Damaging. Restrictions. That shiny-Apple-newness doesn't even make their new paradigm a good thing, on it's own: that's a question that must be answered by analyzing the pro's and con's of Apple's Glorious New Way, not simply assumed because the new way is different than what came before!

Edited 2010-02-03 18:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3