Err... Why? Who gives a shit who else uses your OS? It's not a lifestyle choice, it's a fucking operating system.
True, but it's been marketed (and bought) as if it *were* a lifestyle product, so it's not entirely surprising.
Also, was "his personal preference is Mac" in the summary actually meant to be a Penny Arcade reference or was it just me that thought of that...?!
Have you seen his hair?
I had no idea he was gay.
Depends what one means by "gay" or "gay hair".
I guess that technically you could say Kim Jong-Un's hair appears "homosexual" to me, but only in the sense that it always reminded me of a lesbian hairstyle more than anything...!
What exactly this says about a *man* wearing such a hairstyle, I have absolutely no bloody idea.
Musk could have played along with this sort of ruse, or just flipped him off. So he flipped him off. Brinksmanship is a game the rich can play.
That was kind of my point, though. I just see another rich and powerful guy who took some not-entirely-unwarranted criticism very personally (#) and being in a rich and powerful enough position, took his petty revenge against another sort-of-but-nowhere-near-as-rich guy. I appreciate that it's sometimes nice to see the stereotypical "arrogant BMW driving tosser" get their comeuppance and that Musk's fan following might be inclined to see it that way, but I'm pretty sceptical.
There's nothing to indicate that he was doing it for the reasons you gave nor protecting his employees from the customer from hell as others suggested.
On the contrary, it sounds like he knew he had more than enough fawning customers to fill his order books such that he could get away with this- and I suspect the endless adulation may have made him less tolerant to any form of criticism. But that in itself doesn't make Alsop the entitled-customer-from-hell as some seem to think.
(#) If the criticism was taken as personal, it was as much because Musk presents himself as the "face"- as well as the owner- of the company. I don't see that the criticism was excessively personal beyond that.
So if Musk has any reason to believe based on this guy's behavior that this guy will be harassing his employees, he actually has a legal obligation to kick this guy to the curb.
Yeah... no. I don't honestly see anything so far to indicate it was coming anywhere near that, let alone approaching the point where it would become a legal issue.
Can't predict what the guy would be like in the future, but a bit of slightly (at most) and not entirely unwarranted entitled-rich-guy criticism doesn't suggest that so far.
Let's be honest; Musk responded that way because he could get away with it, but it doesn't mean he was doing it for legal (or noble) reasons, just that he was in a position where he could afford to do that in response to something that obviously got under his skin.
Stewart lead with an "overly harsh personal response" and was met with a prompt ending of a business relationship.
I'd be inclined to agree with Racemaniac that it didn't come across as overly harsh. Nor did I consider it overly personal.
Was this the whining of an entitled rich guy? Perhaps a little- I won't entirely dismiss the possibility, but I'm not entirely convinced; it was undeniably critical, but he still obviously had enthusiasm for the product.
But regardless- and correct me if I've misunderstood your intent here- your response comes over as a variant of the "people exercising their rights in a free market == no right to criticism".
Musk is- of course- entitled to cancel this guy's order (i.e. end the business "relationship") for pretty much any reason not prohibited by law, but that doesn't excuse him from being criticised for doing so, especially if it appears petty to some.
In all honesty, Musk comes across as no better than, (and just as entitled as), the guy making the complaint. He knows he can afford to be dismissive of a few of his rich customers for somewhat petty reasons if they say something that stings him personally, even if it's somewhat justified. He's got a product with a lot of buzz surrounding it, for which there's likely to be more demand than availability in the foreseeable future.
The fact that Musk can get away with being dismissive and petty doesn't change the fact he's being dismissive and petty, though!
He doesn't strike me as "one of us but with more power" telling a spoilt rich customer where to go (to the cheering of the crowds enjoying their vicarious revenge.) Rather, he comes across as someone stung by (not entirely warranted) criticism, prickly enough to take it even more personally than it was and in a position where he didn't have to take that sort of crap from some uppity customer, then dismiss it with mild contempt not-really-masquerading as feigned disinterest.
(Disclaimer; if anyone is going to take this as a defence of entitled rich tossers, you don't know me very well. I'm just not buying that the customer was quite as bad as he's made out nor that Musk is any better.)
They're absolutely correct; the makers of Adblock Plus are engaging in censorship of digital advertising created by some others and allowing through the digital advertising created by some others, which isn't optimal and thus there are different solutions which do not opt for such fickle behavior.
However, the key part here is that it isn't by force, it's by choice of the enduser of the product; in direct juxtaposition of being on the receiving end of forced digital advertising delivery.
In almost all cases, in order for me to view content, I must first opt in, by only my visiting the site in question, to digital advertisements before I am able (if at all) to disable the advertising through payment. Instead of bitching, we just utilize these tools to (UBlock Origin is my preference) to censor our own content.
I mean, I get it; they are fighting hard to reduce that 30% of Europeans and 10% of Americans blocking ads but enough w/the rhetoric, please.
Just let users, especially Windows Pro users on older hardware, have a reprieve. Make it a year. Make it two. I don't care. But YOUR CUSTOMERS need the option to permanently stop the incessant nagging. You owe them THAT MUCH RESPECT for their business.
It says a lot about how far Microsoft's relentless and utterly shameless attempts to pressurise and browbeat Windows users into upgrading has distorted the debate when it seems like the reasonable thing to do on their part would be to "give" legitimate, paid Windows 7 users a "reprieve". From an update they explicitly don't want (and which might damage their computers' performance) and as if MS were the ones who had the right to force that onto people but can choose- out of the goodness of their hearts- to give these Windows 7 users a *temporary* reprieve of a year or two before they're once again forced onto Windows 10 on *their own* computers- which might not then support their hardware or programs.
Or they might simply not *want* to use Windows 10. *That* in itself is perfectly reasonable, even if expecting MS to support it forever wouldn't be.
Not intending this as an attack on the OP so much as on how MS's behaviour- and the increasingly ludicrous means required to get round MS's brazen attempts to spy on users and bully them into upgrading on *their own damn machines*- has become normalised in a way that would have been unacceptable even five years ago.
I've noticed the exact same thing. I'm a rocket scientist IRL, over educated in the technical fields, strong interests in traditional nerd culture etc, but not so interested in the new geek stuff like comic book movies. I haven't even seen the new star wars.
There are a lot of people like me who feel coopted out of the culture they grew up with. I feel like I'm living n a cargo cult culture. It' difficult to discuss ideas because the broad and deep technical background is no longer there.
Shame I don't have mod points to help the person who already voted you up, as this is bloody perceptive stuff. Everyone's a bloody "geek" nowadays.
There's actually nothing wrong with being interested in some of that stuff, but just because you know how to install apps on your Android phone and know who Alan Turing is- without having any real interest in any of his actual work- doesn't make you a geek in the same sense as him.
I commented just yesterday that although people nowadays are generally *much* more tech-savvy in general than they were- say- ten or fifteen years ago, most people don't seem to know or care what a basic term like "digital" actually means. That's a synonym for online, or high-tech, or something, isn't it...?
There's a guy I know at work who ticks way, *way* more of the stereotypical "geek" boxes than I do- something I've actually joked to him about. He spends lots of time playing World of Warcraft (I haven't been into computer games for the better part of 20 years), was (genuinely) excited to see the new Star Wars film (never cared about Star Wars that much myself) and apparently collected overpriced plastic anime figures at one point. (Don't think he still does as much, but then he's in his mid-thirties and in a steady relationship now). He's also pretty outgoing and far more socially skilled than I am, (#) especially in the "one of the lads" context. (He also has tendencies bordering on the neddish when drunk). He hasn't shown any signs of being interested in science or any of the "hard" traditional geek interests- as opposed to technology- itself.
But he's not fake- he genuinely is into all that stuff. It's just that a lot of those "geeky" interests, as they've become adopted by more people, have ceased to be the signifiers that they used to be, either of deeper interests, or of personality type.
To be fair, even in the past, I doubt it was ever as clear cut as the stereotypes imply (even in the early 90s I knew a guy at school more skilled with computers than myself who was also sociable, outgoing and into the rave scene in a way that I wasn't). But it's probably even less so today.
Then again, I've come to realise that I'm not remotely a "true" geek in either the old "true" sense nor in the modern superficial sense and have probably been guilty of self-stereotyping and thinking I knew myself more than I did. So maybe I'm not the person I should be comparing others to, regardless. But that's another kettle of fish.
(#) It could be argued that the social skills- or lack of- aspect is somewhat more to do with "nerd"-ism rather than geekism. But there's nothing more geeky *or* nerdy than getting obsessed with the difference between those terms, so who gives a toss?
I had the tape deck for the Atari, and it was nothing but a trail of tears.
Yes. The tape interface on the Atari 400 and 800 and their descendants was particularly slow, even compared to the Spectrum and C64.
I suspect that this is because- while it was ahead of its time enough that it could compete with later competitors like the C64- it came out in the late 70s when memory sizes were much smaller. The load speed wouldn't have been an issue given the small size of programs able to fit into the 8 KB of RAM they launched with. (Quite good for the time; the 400 was originally only intended to have 4 KB).
Unfortunately, they didn't improve it on the later models, such as the 64 KB 800XL. I had an 800XL, and even programs designed to fit into 48 KB could easily take over 15 minutes to load!
I suspect they didn't upgrade it for the "XL" models because by that point the US market was becoming primarily disk-based. Unfortunately in Europe, tapes were still common until the 8-bit market died in the early 1990s. I had a disk drive with my 800XL, but lots of games were tape only. Uuuuurrrrrgh!!
Eventually discovered a good program that was able to transfer most games to disk, but not before enduring years of PITA slow loading from tape, complete with "LOAD ERROR- TRY OTHER SIDE"!
Not that this was a problem with cassettes themselves- as they were never originally designed for that- and I guess when disk drives were very expensive, they were the only way of cheaply storing data. But while I'll cut cassettes a lot of slack, I'll never get nostalgic for loading from tape.
Back in the day, when Lucas was just a filmmaker, Star Wars was conceived literally as "a cowboy western in space". It was SUPPOSED to be action-packed and a little cheesy
As far as I'm aware, it was heavily influenced by the original Flash Gordon and similar serials from the 1930s- apparently Lucas originally started out trying to get the rights to remake Flash Gordon. You can even see signs of this in the stylised screen wipes, which a lot of people now associate with Star Wars and don't realise are an obvious homage to the use of those wipes in those old serials.
(The final script also apparently owes a lot to the 1958 Japanese film, The Hidden Fortress).
Regardless, whether or not its influences count as "cowboy western", it was undeniably influenced by- and to some extent meant as a modernised version of- those old pulp fiction serials, regardless of whether or not some people take it a little too seriously.
Someone made the perceptive comment that whereas the original Star Wars trilogy was influenced by all those old films, the problem with the prequels was that they were influenced by Star Wars.
Well, that and (a) the fact that George Lucas was by then so powerful that no-one was able to stand up to him in the way they did on the original films (i.e. no-one to say "you can type this shit, but you can't say it" or change the famous Leia/Solo "I know" exchange) and it seems clear that most people think Lucas's work strongly benefited from having to accept such external input and collaboration. And (b) The fact that the prequels- what I saw of them- seemed more po-faced and aware of their own (inflated) "seriousness", aside from the designated- and maligned- comic relief.
Disclaimer: I was never a rabid fan of the originals anyway, and I always found C3PO (who I keep wanting to call CP3O) a bit annoying too. But I can see why people like them on the original level they were intended, and I can understand why some people might take them more seriously than that... I just don't necessarily agree that it's entirely justified.
It would be hard to argue that Apple's decision to leave out the floppy drive didn't cause the situation we had 5 years later.
It wouldn't be hard to argue that at all! (#)
As I said, CD writers were already getting cheaper by the late 90s, and Apple can hardly claim credit for hastening their adoption since they didn't even include one.
Yes, the 1.44MB floppy format's capacity was already outdated and starting to look badly out of sync with the sort of file sizes and uses common by the late 90s (cf. the rapidly-growing capacity of hard drives, and the amount of data already-widespread CD-ROMs could hold). The pressure for a replacement was already there in the PC market, the only problem was that no realistic alternative at a practical price had received universal adoption by then. Apple's abolition of the floppy didn't provide a solution at all, it only forced their users to buy external floppy drives.
At best, as the other guy suggested, Apple provide a marginal level of forward pressure to something that would have happened anyway.
If anything, what Apple *do* deserve some credit for is encouraging the adoption of USB, whose time had- or should have- arrived by then. And even that was available in PCs at the time- the one I bought 3 or 4 months before the iMac came out included USB, the problem was that it wasn't that well-supported, and there seemed to be no hurry to do so. So maybe they helped that- and it could be argued, indirectly helped the adoption of USB pen drives several years later- but even that was by forcing the issue (i.e. abolishing legacy ports), and I suspect that USB would have taken off eventually anyway. At least in that case they included a realistic alternative, unlike with the abolition of the floppy.
(#) I think your nickname gives away your slightly partisan nature
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan