WingNews logo WingNews GitHub [2]

Toady's comments

Toady | 14 years ago

I hope entrepreneurs don't start confusing accountability with narcissism because of Steve Jobs. You don't have to be a rude, difficult, bully to get things right. Not only would Steve tell people that their work sucked, but when they finally produced something he approved of, he would often act as if it was his idea. His romanticized view of the world was also impractical, from the meaningless paint job of the NeXT factory to his refusal to have his body "invaded" by surgery. What point does it serve to go through 64 nurses or worry about the design of your oxygen mask? It's absurd and accomplishes nothing.

Toady | 14 years ago

Steve Jobs wasn't the designer of the iPhone. Other people made it while he cracked the whip. For some reason, a lot of the press is giving him credit for everything at Apple in spite of his infamous reputation for taking credit for other people's work.

Jef Raskin said these things in regards to the Macintosh project:

"What I proposed was a computer that would be easy to use, mix text and graphics, and sell for about $1,000. Steve Jobs said that it was a crazy idea, that it would never sell, and we didn't want anything like it. He tried to shoot the project down."

"After he took over, Jobs came up with the story about the Mac project being a 'pirate operation.' We weren't trying to keep the project away from Apple, as he later said; we had very good ties with the rest of Apple. We were trying to keep the project away from Jobs' meddling. For the first two years, Jobs wanted to kill the project because he didn't understand what it was really all about."

"I was very much amused by the recent Newsweek article where he [Jobs] said, 'I have a few good designs in me still.' He never had any designs. He has not designed a single product. Woz designed the Apple II. Ken Rothmuller and others designed Lisa. My team and I designed the Macintosh. Wendell Sanders designed the Apple III. What did Jobs design? Nothing."

Toady | 14 years ago

You may dislike the verbosity, but it's hardly "completely unnecessary." A typical Objective-C program is inherently self-documenting. It's nice knowing what a group of arguments is used for without having to look up the method prototype.

Toady | 14 years ago

Well, the beard, and other quirks, sort of symbolize how socially off and out-of-touch with normal people Stallman and others like him actually are. It doesn't automatically refute arguments he makes, but it does paint a picture.

Toady | 14 years ago

Equating the iPhone to a "jail" is goofy political hyperbole. Normal people don't even view software in that context. It's just a piece of hardware and software they choose to use or not use.

Stallman represents the strain of computer nerds who want to view their hobby as the bold movement of a freedom fighter. They are out-of-touch and don't understand what normal people think and feel. They want their nerd playground to remain in place because it's a world they have control in.

To paraphrase you, it's sad but true.

Toady | 14 years ago

The mobile world is still in its infancy, regardless of how many years ago Microsoft was working on it. No offense, but you come off as far too emotional to take seriously in a discussion. You start with some valid points about management, but then you act like they personally spit on your car.

There's a very valid point you didn't address, which is that Google is relying on its search monopoly profits to pump a free product into a new market in order to destroy existing competitors there. Regardless of how you feel about Google or Android, that is a behavior Microsoft was once criticized for when it made Internet Explorer free in order to destroy Netscape. Just something to think about.

It's important to maintain an objective perspective on all mega-corporations with monopoly power to make sure that your emotions aren't preventing you from recognizing a villain. Is Google a villain? In my opinion, they're on their way based on their behavior of the last couple of years.

Toady | 14 years ago

You're being down voted because you missed the point. Google's lawyer was claiming that Microsoft was banding together with rivals to damage them, but Microsoft has revealed that they actually offered to team up with Google, and Google refused because they wanted the patents for themselves.

A lot of people are giving Google the benefit of the doubt for their motivations in bidding on the patents (hey, it's pro-Google territory around here, I get that), but the point of this article is that Google's blog post was a lie. They were trying to portray a pattern of behavior on Microsoft's part by which they team up with competitors against Google, yet it turns out Microsoft actually offered to bid with Google.

Toady | 14 years ago

It's like when Google calls Android "open" but then withholds the source from non-privileged partners.

Toady | 14 years ago

Complaining about huge bids that are more than what these bogus patents are worth is pretty hypocritical if you yourself bid over $3 billion for them.

I think Google is whining because they didn't win, and they know communities like this are anti-patent and will automatically side with them if they portray it a certain way. It's hypocritical to complain about the patent system and that competitors won patents you also wanted and were bidding on.

Toady | 14 years ago

God, I can't wait for this era of wannabe yuppies to end, yuppies reading about launching startups and talking about startups and thinking about everything in terms of startups. It's got to be the most boring tech news of all time, and I have no idea how anyone could be interested in it.

Toady | 14 years ago

If that's all you get out of it, then you're intentionally ignoring the years of talk about "openness" from Google and its criticism of competitors who don't adopt open standards.

Toady | 14 years ago

Maybe because Google constantly markets itself on its use of open standards.

Toady | 14 years ago

Yes, we know. That's the point. They shouldn't have because there was no reason to.

Toady | 14 years ago

Oh, okay, so that makes it okay for the site to be Chrome-only despite Google's constant proselytizing over "openness."

Toady | 14 years ago

You only think it's "useless" because it bashes Google, obviously a company you like. You ask what Google's incentive is to build the site if they can't make people download Chrome to use it, which is a bizarre question that seems to admit that Google is not about open standards at all. If Google was all about open standards, it wouldn't matter which browser you used.

The reality is that Google is not some benevolent open source company as they're often portrayed but are a gigantic advertising company with a financial incentive in getting you onto their products, which gives them data to index for advertisers. Chrome, for example, automatically interfaces with the Google search engine by default. They don't care about openness--that's a feel-good buzzword they use to make techies like them.

Google defenders have gotten worse than Apple defenders when it comes to justifying absolutely every shitty move Google makes.

Toady | 14 years ago

But did Google Wave or Buzz take off that fast?

Yes, in two days, Buzz had millions of users according to Google: http://tinyurl.com/3gsve3q

I think Google+ is way overhyped. It's currently riding a novelty factor among early adopters of not being Twitter or Facebook. You even get blasted on it if you mention "Follow Friday."

Toady | 14 years ago

You're asking me how it's bad that Google is using a strong-arm tactic to punish content-owners who sued it? Surely, I don't need to answer that question, especially with Google's monopoly troubles in Europe. Google should let things be, respect the decision, and move on.

I'd also like to mention again how incredibly lame it is that my comments are being voted down in this discussion. All I did was correct people who assumed the lawsuit was pertaining to ALL search engine links. I'm at a loss as to what I wrote that warrants negative votes.

Toady | 14 years ago

That's incorrect. You can read the ruling for yourself:

http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20app...

The decision was pertaining to the use of lead paragraphs and other excerpts from copyrighted articles in the Google News aggregator. It didn't refer to plain links in the general search engine.

I see that my comments in this discussion are being voted down for pointing this out, which is bizarre. I'm simply stating the truth and correcting posts that mistakenly assume the lawsuit was in reference to ALL links in the search engine. Voting me down is incredibly lame.

I believe that Google is deliberately misinterpreting the decision, likely to remind content-owners that Google controls their source of online revenue and to therefore back off. Google has a history of being defiant with regards to this lawsuit, ignoring a court order to publish the court's decision on their Belgian websites, so they would surely have no problem doing something retaliatory under the guise of following the court's decision.

Toady | 14 years ago

The lawsuit was over the use of lead paragraphs and other article excerpts, specifically in the Google News aggregator, not plain links in the general search engine.
page 1