History repeating
Well looks like Johns still at it:
"It’s unproven whether this model can even work in the long run (where by “work” I mean “produce a phone and software platform with a state-of-the-art user experience”)"
"It’s unproven whether this model can even work in the long run (where by “work” I mean “produce a phone and software platform with a state-of-the-art user experience”)"
John since you're old enough to remember, let me tell you a story about a fantastic computer, one that was leagues ahead of the competition, with amazing hardware , very easy to use and powerful OS, and obviously very importantly to you: nicely integrated all by the same manufacturer.
This magical machine had a almost cult like following, it was streets ahead of its rivals and had a great market share, at the time it seemed everyone i knew was buying one or wanted too.
It was especially popular amongst the most creative people, it was used to edit video and create 3D effects and motion graphics before most people had even heard of emails.
Yep and you know what, I don't know nayone who still uses Amigas. But everywhere I look people are using those aweful "beige" PCs running that disgusting Microsfot OS that not a single manufacturer bothered to "integrate into a user experience".
Now that I come to think of it, the above also covers another big computer manufacturer whose name starts with A...
Yes some people truly never learn their history lessons.
posted by Maksim Lin at 9:02 AM
5 Comments:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you arguing that John Gruber is using the incorrect definition for the word "work", or that the approach of having a software platform seperate from the hardware platform *is* capable of producing a state of the art user experience. Maybe there's some other point that you need to make clearer.
In either of my guesses, I don't think you make a good argument. In the first case, Gruber is just clarifying to the reader what he means when he uses the word "work", and doesn't imply that his definition has anything to do with popularity or financial success.
In the guessed at argument, if I recall, amiga *did* control both the hardware and the software, and was able to produce a state of the art user experience, which nicely supports gruber's argument, rather than detracting from it.
If there is some other kind of point hidden in here, you should probably make it a bit clearer.
Also, Amiga's failure had nothing to do with the quality of the platform. Amiga failed because of poor business management.
But Breton thats my point exactly: Grubers defintion of "work" is irrelavant! thinking that its some kind of magical state achieved by apple.
My argument is simply that he can whine about android not meeting his utopian vision of what a "state of the art" platform should be all he wants, but its not that that will cause andriod to come out ahead of iphone and "mobile osx". No it andoirds open source nature and lack of arbitrary restrictions on hardware and on users that will ee apples downfall (history repeats yet again!).
As for the amiga, your second comment makes the point for me - just as the amiga failed due to business decisions and not its quality so will the iphone fail not due to any inherent technical deficiencies but simply due to Apples (aka S. Jobs) paranoid business practices.
But see, I don't think Gruber is interested in one company or the other having any kind of financial success. He just wants a phone that doesn't suck, and (apparently) android phones suck. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see in the article what you see in it.
Yet without finanical success there can be no phone, thats part of my point, the technical and financial success cannot be seperated.
But the most important issue is that Gruber is so blinkered that he does not even acknowledge the most important aspect of a phone platforms quality: "choic e". Its that part that makes the iphones usability score ZERO for many:
* like myself
* people that want to choice of apps
* people that want choice of hardware
* developers want choice in how their apps are delivered
* manufacturers that want choice of os vendor
* businesses that want choice of vendors
Even if most of the above never exercise that choice, they still want it!
So on the only usability criteria that counts android is fantastic and the "quality" of the iphones sucks so badly its "not even in the same game, let alone the same ballpark". You see all the other criteria tha Gruber mentions are irrelavant in the long run and its the long run thats important. If it wasn't then maybe Gruber might be writing about how grea it is to use a Newton...
And thats why brought up the Amiga, though of course my point may have been made even better by using Apple themselves as the example, they failed badly once by not understanding the need to give people choice and I think they are setting themselves up for an even bigger fall this time round.
For myself, I've given up on them, if they can't play the right game, then I've already bought myself a season pass for the more interesting league.
Post a Comment
<< Home