I noticed on your front page that you caution agaist the use of Safari in the forums. Seems to work fine for moi. I succesfully registered and posted twice using Safari. I have been able to read and enjoy the Fox Channelesque butt rubbing going on with nary an X-man in site. Maybe I can change that with a little crap-settling deluxe. Anyhoo, seems like Safari works for me (ole X-man refrain), maybe the problem lies with youse guys.

Well, I could not register using Safari. The link didn't work and I had to use IE. I'm not saying Safari is crap - I like it a lot - I'm saying Thalo was right in cautioning us that it might not interact properly with his forum software.

You are right, but I found if you opened the register link in a new tab, you could register in Safari. I'm not sure why just clicking the link doesn't work. I wonder if it has to do with the tabs implementation.

Thanks for the helpful tip!

Well, another forum software package to learn.

*Sigh*

quote:

---

I have been able to read and enjoy the Fox Channelesque butt rubbing going on with nary an X-man in site. Maybe I can change that with a little crap-settling deluxe.

---

Bring it on, Brother mithradites!

Hard to enjoy a site founded on one overarching principle: arguing is not a bad thing when there's not a whiff of dissent to be found!

Hard to enjoy a site founded on one overarching principle: arguing is not a bad thing when there's not a whiff of dissent to be found!

Then let the games commence. Dissent 'til you're blue in the face. No one is going to stop you whether your opinion is popular or unpopular, tired or fresh, feeble or boisterous. And my first argument with you would be about dissing this forum because we're a bunch of like-minded people. Heck, that's describes most Mac forums to a tee. Not that all people are really so like-minded on those other forums, but the forums and the participants have a way of herding people toward a certain accepted way of speaking where disagreements are managed by Macitically Correct rules of behavior. Then you hear a bunch of stuff like "Don't get me wrong. I like OS X. But I think it needs…", which is just a way of genuflecting to the Mac Zealots and saying "Don't hurt me! I really AM a Mac believer!"

And if you can't find any dissent on this forum, even while it was just me, thalo and Max circle-jerking each other, then you weren't trying very hard.

And with a name like 9point5man I can't help but like you. But I've got a feeling I've met you before. Welcome.

Bring it on, Brother mithradites!

Hard to enjoy _a site founded on one overarching principle: arguing is not a bad thing_ when there's not a whiff of dissent to be found!

Well sir, and I have to agree with Brad that we may know each other from another place, I am here to dissent and at least show that there are some of us who towards the fight rather than away. If I have to be the only X-man, and I am not a very good one admittedly because I see both sides of the coin, then I will do my best to frame the virtues of the OS in the face of all this trash talkin'. I often wonder where these same OSX bashers were when the Classic OS had so many problems it really needed some squeaky wheel dissent. Why wasn't the hammer being laid down at that time. Where was "Plato" and his philosophical diatribes against the "ease of use" on having to move around forty different windows just to get to one somewhere in the back on the desktop, or the "joys" of having constant restarts after a crash in the middle of something important, or the freakin' wonderful out of memory message that wouldn't even let you open an additonal application? Now that their beloved interface has been tossed aside for one that reminds them of their own marketing lies, the complaining starts? As thalo would say puhleaze. So let me say it now, the reason X-critics dislike the tactics of X-men is that those same tactics remind them of the apologists they once were with the classic OS - the underpinnings suck, the hardware is expensive, but the interface sure is great. X-critics invented crap-settling.

And why isn't this site written to accomodate Safari better? Isn't it the job of the web designer to make sure the place works in all browsers? I am waiting for the excuses now. Man, what is that smell?

I often wonder where these same OSX bashers were when the Classic OS had so many problems it really needed some squeaky wheel dissent.

I was still working on my MBA (Master Baiter Accreditation) at the time. Good question, though. I suppose that, despite the imperfections of the OS's up to 9, I thought I was working on the best OS out there – and I think I was. Unless you know of something demonstrably better you just tend to be satisfied with what you have. But when OS X started taking things backward, started devolving the Mac interface, I got upset because I had seen and used better. The additional cattle-prodding was that I was primed for OS X to fix so many of the things that were flaws in OS 9, many of which you pointed out. It did – and then promptly broke so many other things.

Where was "Plato" and his philosophical diatribes against the "ease of use" on having to move around forty different windows just to get to one somewhere in the back on the desktop

First off, I don't see how not speaking out on the flaws of the Mac OS's prior to X delegitimizes current criticisms. Second, I don't see how pointing out that OS 9 has flaws inherently puts a feather in the cap of OS X.

So let me say it now, the reason X-critics dislike the tactics of X-men

The only tactics I didn't like – and I don't know that any of the core group of X-men did this – was complaining to the moderators in order to squelch the entire debate. Now, as far as the arguments of the X-men, we'll just have to deal with those one by one. There have been so many that we've shot full of holes.

…that those same tactics remind them of the apologists they once were with the classic OS

I think an apologist finds evidence (or invents it) to back up whatever they already believe, or want to believe. I've never apologized for OS 9's flaws. They're there. I've spelled some of them out in great detail. Never been shy about it. And when it came to comparing OS 9 to OS X it's not all about preferences, wishes and desires. Interface design is much more an exact science than the X-men would ever admit. They seem to think that just any ol' thing will do, that it's all about whatever you get used to. Well surely, at the very least, stripes and badly anti-aliased text should put an end once and for all to this idea that everything is subjective and we're simply all just apologists no matter what side of the debate we're on.

And why isn't this site written to accomodate Safari better? Isn't it the job of the web designer to make sure the place works in all browsers?

I use Opera. I don't like squinting at blurry text.

Oh man, Darr. You brought it on good, bro.

was still working on my MBA (Master Baiter Accreditation) at the time. Good question, though. I suppose that, despite the imperfections of the OS's up to 9, I thought I was working on the best OS out there – and I think I was. Unless you know of something demonstrably better you just tend to be satisfied with what you have.

Are you sure you aren't a closet X-man. That sounds like crap-settling if I have ever heard it. Qualifying the sentence with, "despite the imperfections". Sorry Brad, you have just joined the club.

But when OS X started taking things backward, started devolving the Mac interface, I got upset because I had seen and used better. The additional cattle-prodding was that I was primed for OS X to fix so many of the things that were flaws in OS 9, many of which you pointed out. It did – and then promptly broke so many other things.


Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Seriously though, if the Platinum fan-boy base had been more vocal it is likely that the subsequent interface wouldn't have been so dolled up. Makes me wonder then if the new interface only traded one set of problems for another and those were more manageable with all the added features. Apologetic for the lack of perfection? Damn straight, 'cause nothing is ever perfect.

I do wonder why Apple was losing so many customers to Windows-based companies if the classic OS was so super. I agree that the classic OS was the best thing out there at the time, yet market share was plummeting, as the numbers HighHopes kindly offered to us from time to time showed. What then? Was it the underpinnings? The price of the hardware? The specs of the hardware?

I don't see how pointing out that OS 9 has flaws inherently puts a feather in the cap of OS X.

Didn't you mean to say "puts a feather in the CRAP of OSX"?

The only tactics I didn't like – and I don't know that any of the core group of X-men did this – was complaining to the moderators in order to squelch the entire debate. Now, as far as the arguments of the X-men, we'll just have to deal with those one by one. There have been so many that we've shot full of holes.

Sorry, I meant arguments, not tactics. And I haven't heard anyone shoot down the argument about how OSX is more stable, more productive, and eminently more suitable for my needs. Warts, sure. OS9 was full of warts for me as well. But I am often surprised by how much more work I get done in OSX than in the classic OS. It took OSX for me to see the possibilities and productivity, because I was very happy with OS8.6. That being said, I am happy to bang a drum for improvements where I see the need. Widgets, icons, and text is not one of them.

I use Opera. I don't like squinting at blurry text.

Haven't tried Opera. I liked OmniWeb the best, but it is too slow. Safari just happened for me. I didn't want to like it over OmniWeb, but it happened. However, the minute OmniWeb uses the same rendering core that Safari uses and speeds its ass up, the minute I will return.

I do wonder why Apple was losing so many customers to Windows-based companies if the classic OS was so super.

Price, non-proprietary hardware, and an aggressive campaign by Microsoft to get LOTS of software developed for DOS, and later, Windows.

I agree that the classic OS was the best thing out there at the time, yet market share was plummeting, as the numbers HighHopes kindly offered to us from time to time showed. What then? Was it the underpinnings? The price of the hardware? The specs of the hardware?

It was probably Apple's decision, despite the OS, to keep it a closed platform way back when. After that decision (or lack of one), price, Apple's intentional marketing to a very narrow group and their historic arrogance that did the rest over the years. One should note that Jobs has hardly been a savior. Marketshare has been cut by 2/3 since Jobs II, from 6 to 2. Apple is finished if they wish to remain the "boutique" of computer companies while demanding such a premium price. That market is being penetrated by snazzy Windows laptops, all-in-ones and towers from people like Alienware (and others). As Windows itself improves, fewer and fewer people need consider a Mac for any kind of special work. What are left are perhaps the graphics and publishing markets and perhaps video production, and Apple seems to be doing their best to undermine these areas as they go so clearly for some supposed DigiKid market. I think Thalo blows the doors off of this idea in another post 'round here.

Apple must start competing, as best they can, on price as far as computers are concerned. They should offer a VERY inexpensive mini-tower or pizza box Mac for $499.00. They need to have greater flexibility on build-to-order. They need to clean up OS X and make it more suitable for Pros. They need to expand their marketing to focus on those WITH THE MONEY and with the desire pay a little more for something special and that market is not a bunch of brain-dead DigiKids. Their advertising should reflect this. They should probably continue to diversify with things like iTunes, The Music Store and anything else they can come up with and they should swallow their arrogance and offer stuff like this IMMEDIATELY to Windows users. And this, of course, ultimately this means getting a new CEO who cares more about making money and listening to customers than stroking his own ego.

(I haven't seen thalo blowing the doors off any ideas, although he certainly has been blowing off ideas themselves. OS X just like blue-striped yogurt in a tube? Wow, what an incisive yet subtle skewering.)

Let me see: Apple must make cheaper hence less customizable computers, more flexible hence costlier build-to-order computers, focus on lively-brained Pro users while IMMEDIATELY expanding the dead-brained DigiKid appeal of iTunes and the Music Store to Windows users...

...I guess they should purchase a number of third-party software companies while building up cash reserves, too, eh?

Apple must make cheaper hence less customizable computers

How customizable are the iMacs now? Not very. All I'm talking about is selling the darn monitors separately so you can lower the price of the CPU.

more flexible hence costlier build-to-order computers

I don't know the behind-the-scene costs involved, but you might be surprised by the increase in sales if people can buy what they want. Then again, maybe it would be a big boondoggle. Somehow Dell has been successful doing it.

focus on lively-brained Pro users

Why jettison a hard-core, loyal and deep-pocketed segment of your market?

while IMMEDIATELY expanding the dead-brained DigiKid appeal of iTunes and the Music Store to Windows users...

In the context of Apple's diminishing computer sales, if you provide a product or service that is good and that people want then you should stop with all this proprietary thinking and simply sell it to people.

..I guess they should purchase a number of third-party software companies while building up cash reserves, too, eh?

They've done a bit of that and they've done a bit of creating of their own products, such as Safari and Keynote. It seems to be a defense against the larger software makers bugging out on them as the Mac market shrinks.

The whole concept of the DigiKid reminds me of those giant inflatable bowling-pin-shaped knock-em-down-and-they-roll-right-back-up-with-a-smile punching bags for youngsters.

Invent a concept, make it larger than life, paint it with cartoonish oversimplification, and amuse yourself by bashing it repeatedly.

(Maybe this is one of thalo's stylistic metaphors: the inflated caricature of the DigiKid as subtle dig at 64x64 icons in OS X?)

This distinction between "us"--the Pro user, serious and sober with Important Work To Do--and "them"--the half-assed idiots who have nothing better to do than sit around consuming electronic cotton candy while presumably collecting unemployment--smacks of greater arrogance and "downtalking" than anything Apple says.

Why not consider that those who use their computers in more generalized ways are a part of the same superset as the Pro users: those for whom regular and habitual computer use is an integral part of life?

You might argue that the needs of Pro users are more "legitimate" since their livelihoods depend on the responsiveness of their computers, but you'd be wrong. Ever hear of a darkroom? Drafting board? Paste-up? You don't NEED digital tools to manipulate graphical information, and publishing flourished for four or five centuries without them.

What's that? You can't compete in today's graphics/publishing marketplace without those digital tools?

Well, then, you may have sympathy for another creative talent whose livelihood depends on competing successfully in today's marketplace: Apple Computer.

Complain all you want about the sense of abandonment Apple's business decisions have left you with. I can understand that. It's the unending derision towards those constituting the much larger market that Apple is currently focused on that has me baffled.

A buck is a buck. Why should two million MusicStore bucks earn the music buyers nothing but scorn? What kind of accounting do they teach you guys?

Ford used to make pickup trucks that were like tanks: heavy-gauge sheet metal, split-rim wheels, massive axels, springs, and drive trains, and big heavy duty V8s and transmissions. They didn't handle worth a damn, the ride was like boating across chop, and you got ten miles to the gallon with a tailwind. But you could throw a full-size cast-iron elephant in the bed and drive it to Biloxi.

Now they make cars with pickup skins available. Even the top-end plow and trailer packages don't turn one of these babies into the kind of twenty-year workhorse they used to turn out.

But guess what? Contractors still get their work done...and Ford sells millions of pickups every year.

If I recall correctly, the whole digikid argument was a vain attempt to dichotomize those who "push" their computers and those who do not. From that "argument", the digikid is in all likelihood not going to have the same "problems" with OSX since all they use their computer for is digital hubster entertainment, whereas the "pro" has to work under crunching deadlines and finicky customers. Thus the eye candy-zation of the interface "proves" that Apple is not willing to focus on the needs of the "pro" user since the "pro" user requires a bland interface to avoid distraction, while the "digikid" needs a distracting interface to catch their attention.

Of course, Apple is also going after a whole new breed of "pro" users, those who do not use their computers in a "creative" field, but indulge in more "serious" data orientated pursuits. Much of the underlying newness in OSX - the appearance of the command line, the file browser paradigm in the Finder, the multi-user environment - is, I think, purposefully there to command the respect, attention, and use of people in the more technically minded fields. It continues to amaze me how many of my colleagues embrace OSX when they were so skeptical at first. All it takes is a week of use and they don't look back.

Did there have to be some trade-offs to capture more of these markets? Probably not. Did the interface have to change so drastically? I think so in order to differentiate the new from the old. Should they fix some useability issues and bugs? Certainly. Should they capitulate to every "pro" user's demands? No, some of the newer ways actually work and flow better, such as having a functional command line for certain tasks, or the file broswer (column view) paradigm to rapidly traverse a folder hierarchy, or larger icons to convey deeper, richer information.

To me, the whole digikid tirade is just like that of a tantrum from a single child who now realizes that the parents are bringing another child into the family. All of a sudden, all the attention will no longer belong solely to the elder child. And so every little insult and injury that can be inflicted is done so in order to gain any attention. But, that is why I like older brother thalo, even if he is a pain in the ass sometimes.

This distinction between "us"--the Pro user, serious and sober with Important Work To Do--and "them"--the half-assed idiots who have nothing better to do than sit around consuming electronic cotton candy while presumably collecting unemployment--smacks of greater arrogance and "downtalking" than anything Apple says.

Now you're talkin', 9.5. You mean like this?

Nothing wrong with playing. Nothing wrong with working. Nothing wrong with mixing working and playing. Just don't FORCE me to play when I've got work to do.

BTW, you seem to have Thalo's spiel down pat. That's good stuff.

Why not consider that those who use their computers in more generalized ways are a part of the same superset as the Pro users: those for whom regular and habitual computer use is an integral part of life?

Good idea. Apple should take note of that.

You might argue that the needs of Pro users are more "legitimate" since their livelihoods depend on the responsiveness of their computers, but you'd be wrong. Ever hear of a darkroom? Drafting board? Paste-up? You don't NEED digital tools to manipulate graphical information, and publishing flourished for four or five centuries without them.

Did all them things back in the 70's and 80's. I couldn't survive doing it now because the thalos of the world are armed to the teeth with computer power. A similar thing is happening now, I think. If one is armed with OS X can one be competitive? Windows computers are more capable than OS X, they're cheaper, have more software, run faster, and are the established standard in many areas, and if you consider that about 75% of Adobe's sales are now to the PC then you could say that the graphics industry is increasingly moving to Windows.

It's the unending derision towards those constituting the much larger market that Apple is currently focused on that has me baffled.

Whatever that target "larger" market is they've already shot and missed. What they're trying to do now is scrape together a market of warmed-over Mac fanatics who think Microsoft is teh evil and believe that buying a Mac is somehow like saving the whales.

A buck is a buck. Why should two million MusicStore bucks earn the music buyers nothing but scorn? What kind of accounting do they teach you guys?

By saying that Apple should take this seemingly successful product and also offer it to Windows immediately, rather than later as Apple says they will do, I'm throwing around scorn? No. I'm saying it works. It's shown signs of being popular. Strike while the iron is hot. Instead, in their ultimate arrogance, they're going to dribble it out to Windows users later. By that time it may be too late. Microsoft or someone else might have come up with an even better product. Once again, Apple will have let another advantage slip away because they have their head up their rear ends. They're the scornful, arrogant ones. Not me, unless you count my scorning their scorn.

By saying that Apple should take this seemingly successful product and also offer it to Windows immediately, rather than later as Apple says they will do, I'm throwing around scorn? No. I'm saying it works. It's shown signs of being popular. Strike while the iron is hot.

I am with you there Brad. I think it a mistake to not have had a Windows version ready to go. Introduce it a month after the Mac version, and hope that the excellent design and ease of use would start to get people to switch. That is the idea, right? Six months later is too much time for competitors to make and market alternative products.

If I recall correctly, the whole digikid argument was a vain attempt to dichotomize those who "push" their computers and those who do not.

Darr, you'd have to ask the Master Baiter himself. I'm just a lowly minion with an unclear understanding of the concept. Hell, I don't quite abide by the whole concept anyway – at least not the way thalo uses it. I'm all for fun. I'm all for listening to iTunes, ripping CD's, chatting with your friends, watching icons bounce 'cause it's cool, drowning in eye candy if that's what you want to do, etc., etc., etc. There was no shortage of opportunities for this in OS 9. You could add a Kaleidoscope them, a fancy desktop picture, custom icons (although not HUGE icons), etc. The thing was, the basic interface, while meant to be at least somewhat attractive (which IS an important function of a computer, as I've argued before) was based more on ideas of interface design with the goal of making computers easier to use. The clear goal of Apple is to dress up their OS like they were selling pop culture. It hasn't worked. Mission not accomplished. Time to go back to the ol' HIGs and bring some sanity back to the interface and allow people to trick up their computers with stuff that THEY add – or Apple can simply offer some built-in themes.

Apple seems to think the only way they can survive is by image. That's the crux of the matter. I say that substance is as important, if not more so. Whack together the tightest, most capable computer OS you can imagine and they can market it to the "Hello Kitty" crowd if you want and it will still find an audience of the people who like the best of the best.

Thus the eye candy-zation of the interface "proves" that Apple is not willing to focus on the needs of the "pro" user since the "pro" user requires a bland interface to avoid distraction, while the "digikid" needs a distracting interface to catch their attention.

I think that's almost right, although "less is more" need not be bland by any means.

Of course, Apple is also going after a whole new breed of "pro" users, those who do not use their computers in a "creative" field, but indulge in more "serious" data orientated pursuits. Much of the underlying newness in OSX - the appearance of the command line, the file browser paradigm in the Finder, the multi-user environment - is, I think, purposefully there to command the respect, attention, and use of people in the more technically minded fields.

The Geek Aristocracy raises its head! Darr, I think you and 9.5, at a very basic level, have an understanding of this whole matter. To appeal to the Geek Aristocracy, DigiKids, and snobby Pros is not such an easy thing to do. With Unix they've appealed do the Geek Aristrocracy. With the eye candy they appeal to the DigiKids (or casual users). What's left for those traditional Mac users who specifically and repeatedly chose the Mac over Windows time and time again because the Mac interface made them more productive? Nothing. Zilch.

Did the interface have to change so drastically? I think so in order to differentiate the new from the old.

It would have been ludicrous to not come up with something new and simply continue the Platinum look, for the reasons you've stated. That does not, however, justify throwing out the AHIGs. Again, I seriously doubt that any of you would have squealed one bit if OS X was exactly like OS 9 but with the new guts of Unix.

To me, the whole digikid tirade is just like that of a tantrum from a single child who now realizes that the parents are bringing another child into the family.

Oh, absolutely, Darr. But if someone doesn't stick up for the faction of users like Thalo and myself, who will?

quote:

---

I often wonder where these same OSX bashers were when the Classic OS had so many problems it really needed some squeaky wheel dissent.

---

I'll tell you where we were: crap settling. Slack cutting, overlooking. I mean, I did my best to complain and report bugs and such, but I was busier using my Mac in those days than complaining about it. But we had an interface that was intelligent, graphically sparse, intuitive and responsive. That shows me, that IN THE WAYS THAT REALLY REALLY COUNT... Apple had it on the ball.

I've said this before, but I was SO ready for OS X. I had pretty much totally had it with crashes and memory management issues and was really looking forward to a total revamping of the OS. So when terms like protected memory and symmetric multi-tasking were being thrown around, I was like a kid waiting in breathless anticipation for Santa. I really had no idea they were going to dumb down the interface, and make so many serious boners, leaving me with a slow, bloated diaper-load.

You could have knocked me over with a feather when the crashes in OS X turned out to be, when all is said and done, worse and more annoying than they were in 9. We traded a few big crashes for dozens of little ones. I call 9's crashes "honest" crashes. They're like an old hunting dog, whose heart bursts with effort because he gives 110%. As opposed to OS X crashes, which are spread out into smaller "dishonest" crashes, where it's like embezzling a dollar at a time instead of a hold up.

You've heard the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ? Well, the interface was like the one thing that wasn't broke. And the thing that got the absolute worst hatchet job in OS X. When the interface was good, even yours truly Mr. Anal/Crap Intolerant was a crap-settler.

It's the difference between having a soul, and not. A great interface tells you where the priorities of Apple were, and they were with the end user. The 'H' in AHIG was "Human" and selling the product to digikids never entered into the discussion. When marketingitis took over, the dumbing down and downtalking... the priorities showed that Apple thought the user base was a pack of retards, something to be exploited, rather than elevated. The Mac becomes bread and circuses, instead of the corpus iuris civilis.

It's relatively easy to see through all the nonsense and let Apple's product show us where their heads are at. Every pixel of this monstrosity screams casual use. And it's so half-baked and thrown together that ONLY casual users don't notice the real problems. But they all come out in the heavy lifting. That's when they're egregious. When the bouncing happy horsesh*t starts not looking so fun. Why? Because it's hiding a concerted laxity of conception, and an emphasis on just a couple of slices of the user-base, not everyone... and sure as hell not the card-carrying traditional Mac Pro user base.

As for Safari not working better, sorry man. No excuses That smell is in fact more crap-settling on my part. That's an infopop issue and a Safari-is-a-beta-browser issue. Trust me, there are plenty of sites out there that collapse under Safari. I'm reporting Safari bugs as fast as I can (like drag and dropping images to the desktop sporadically not working) Rest assured it IS driving me nuts, and I'm troubleshooting the java. It's forum software I didn't write, but currently have to use because it came free with the hosting. Ubb.threads (which MFI uses) is better, and if I can save my shekels, I'll definitely upgrade at some point. I wish it wasn't a yearly license, but hey. Hoping you all can suck it up and hang tough until I can afford the best for my brothers. Or until Safari goes CM and manages to address the javascript bugs.

quote:

---

This distinction between "us"--the Pro user, serious and sober with Important Work To Do--and "them"--the half-assed idiots who have nothing better to do than sit around consuming electronic cotton candy while presumably collecting unemployment--smacks of greater arrogance and "downtalking" than anything Apple says.

---

Brother 9.5man, well, that's kinda the idea. Hurts, don't it? It's so horribly unfair and causes all this pouting and ego bruising when I do it, but when Apple does it, some guys roll over and take it. Or worse, justify it with macroeconomics.

Look, I am absolutely THRILLED with music, gizmos and everything the casual use market implies for the Mac. I just don't think it's an either-or situation. The fact that it is, is clearly dysfunction. None of the digital hub scenario ever had to come at the expense of Pro Users. And oh yes it did too.

You may be content to sit around on your hands and let digikids play in the sandbox, dreaming ahead to the days when the greater good will finally be served; but I see the current strategy as ass backwards. You don't alienate the core Faithful user base, just because there ain't enough of them. And you don't exploit a user base that's less demanding and easy to please, just because they're easier to turn a buck on. Aqua money is like blood money. I don't like what Apple is becoming in order to collect it.

It's easy to argue that you can do less, do it less well, and still make money. But the product you get from that type of strategy, frankly, is going to suck. Making the bean counters happy is not the same thing as making good software. Just like less Doritos in the bag might save Frito-Lay millions, but it does squat in the way of improving the actual flavor or quality of the snack food.

Crap-settlers often point to this kind of re-prioritizing of the mac as justification for crap settling. As in "well, if Apple makes money, eventually that will trickle UP to Pro Users and give them a better product." I still say, it's backwards and soul-selling to go that way. Catering to the lowest common denominator can be highly lucrative, but it does not ensure quality. In fact, I'd argue that if you take this road, it's awfully easy to up and decide suddenly that quality is a liability. The room for abuse in dumbing down is greater than the potential for abuse if you decide, hey, let's make quality software that's even good enough for our most demanding customers; and STILL easy enough to use for newbies, digikids, casual and home users.

I strongly believe in rewarding product loyalty. The Mac Faithful stuck by Apple through the dark years, when Microsoft achieved total dominance of the market. And not only stuck by them, but gave them cult status because they believed that these guys got something right. That something was clear and compelling usability through the GUI and a pervasive metaphor. Now, it appears that Apple is changing gears, and instead of building on that strength, instead of finding out and maximizing the things they did magnificently, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater... saying in effect that because their core market was so tiny, that they must have done something wrong. Where I say nope, they did something very RIGHT, they just couldn't bring it to a wider audience because (pattern of Apple) they rested on their laurels, and that core user base was willing to pay a premium for quality and usability. They might be saying now, "we don't want to be the computer company for sophisticated professional users anymore... we'd rather do the bare minimum of work and concentrate on creating a digital hub for easily impressed gizmo buyers who want passive entertainment."

I'm not saying there's a damn thing wrong with passive entertainment, but you'll notice that one of the things that goes out the window is a decent GUI. On the one hand, it's proof of the POWER of the GUI if that's what the marketing suits think is gonna sell. On the other hand, eye candy only goes so far and only sells to people who are blown away by it. In turning over the back end of the Mac to people who DISDAIN GUIs in general, think they're for chimps anyway... what you do is disconnect and fragment by marketing demographic the user-base. Instead of a computer "for the rest of us" which is broad... you narrow and hobble your vision into simple activities (music playing, music buying, home DVD burning, and so on)... and craft it that way, instead of providing the POTENTIAL for a total experience.

Now again, when -I- polarize and fragment the user base, for laughs--when I dare to have the brass balls to pigeonhole people based on the activities they use their computers for... I'm public enema [sic] #1. When Apple does it, for real, and gives you a designer enema with Aqua... you don't even clench your butt cheeks. You sit back and hold your water and let the geek aristocracy continue to pervade, continue to allow it to hold dominion over users that become nothing but marks. Nothing but ticket buyers.

Well screw that. I don't want to buy a ticket, I want to be in the show. I don't want to go to the museum, but paint the picture. That's not who the Mac is for now. And it's not who it's going to BE for, if you let geeks continue to chimpify it without remembering the founding principles of Apple's GUI.

It's up to US to send the message to Apple that they can rule the world, every bit as much as Microsoft does now, if they stop taking second mortgages out on their soul. If they elevate the end user back up, rather than try to put one over on them. If they aim for high standards and quality, instead of sneaking by with low standards and poorly-conceived and executed software that's written around markets instead of potential use and function. They can have their cake and eat it to if they put function, usability, and GUI back at the top of the list.

Be truthful now, do ya think it's on the top of their list today? If you just said 'yes' I'm laughing in your face. Sorry, the digital hub is at the top of the list... a very small part of what the personal computer can do, a very limited vision is at the top of the list: and it's a vision that's tied as intimately to bottom line commerce as your argument is tied to accounting. The iTunes music store is more of a priority than the Finder, than the GUI. Why? There were two million reasons why, the first week. But none of them gave me a better computer operating system.

Brother 9.5man, well, that's kinda the idea. Hurts, don't it? It's so horribly unfair and causes all this pouting and ego bruising when I do it, but when Apple does it, some guys roll over and take it. Or worse, justify it with macroeconomics.

I think what sets people on edge, Brother Thalo, is that implicit in your usual ramblings is that some people have no taste, or their work isn't important (they're not "Pros"), or they're shallow, stupid, empty-headed, easily duped, easily manipulated, etc. Have I forgotten anything?

But the hard facts of life are that some people are all these things - left to their own devices. That's why we NEED leaders. We need ideals and goals larger than ourselves. I'm just a dumb-ass office worker/manager most of the day but when I sit down in front of good ol' OS 9 and do some work in, say, Illustrator I turn into a magician. I touch excellence and just a bit of that excellence somehow rubs off on me. I don't get that in OS X. I get the feeling that I'm trying to use my nephew's Speak 'n' Spell to compose the next great novel. Something was lost when those bastards at NeXT got ahold of the crown jewels and I want it back.