4 ms·

By that standard nobody would ever be allowed to criticize anybody who got in a position of success or power, though, just because "they achieved more than you,

By that standard nobody would ever be allowed to criticize anybody who got in a position of success or power, though, just because "they achieved more than you, sucker". Although I really think Woz is a great guy and that we historically owe him A LOT, one can't understate the fact that he's been operatively absent from the industry for a long time. His comments on Apple come from insights that are quite stale. He might have his own good friends inside the company, but he's certainly not an insider in Cupertino anymore. He often lets journalists paint him as such, though. I respect his insights on the industry at large, because he has certainly seen a lot and done a loto. Even those comments are a bit nicked by his shallow consulting jobs that in the last 10-15 years never really led to anything relevant, since they were probably well paid stunts payed by companies who wanted to enroll a big name to wow investors at pitches. Edit - I want to be clearer: this is a friendly critic coming from someone who still loves Woz and has him on the personal list of "IT celebrities who would be amazing to hang out with". I also want to stress that I don't really blame him for this management of his late image. I just won't give a huge amount of weight to his sharpest statements as publications often do.

coldtea 10y ago
>By that standard nobody would ever be allowed to criticize anybody who got in a position of success or power, though, just because "they achieved more than you, sucker". I'm not sure how someone can even begin to get that from my comment. By the standard that I wrote, nobody would be allowed to criticise someone as a "has been". And especially if they they haven't achieved much themselves either. Period. I didn't say anything about people not "being allowed to criticize anybody who got in a position of success or power" in general. I believe that one can criticize Woz (or anyone other in power/success/etc) all you want. Just not as a "has been", which doesn't really have any content as a critique anyway, and is basically an ad hominem. Want to criticize Woz? Find something specific to criticize. >Although I really think Woz is a great guy and that we historically owe him A LOT, one can't understate the fact that he's been operatively absent from the industry for a long time. So? How does that make them any less valid than anybody's arguments (e.g. in this thread)? I don't know, and don't care whether you or others in this thread have been "operatively present" in the industry recently or not -- I just care about their arguments. If rather you mean "Just because he is Woz, we shouldn't give more credit to what he says over anybody else", then that kind of goes without saying, it's the content that really matters, not the person.
jbpetersen 10y ago
To be cynically fair, almost no one is given serious attention when criticizing those in positions of greater success and power.

coldtea 10y ago

>By that standard nobody would ever be allowed to criticize anybody who got in a position of success or power, though, just because "they achieved more than you, sucker". I'm not sure how someone can even begin to get that from my comment. By the standard that I wrote, nobody would be allowed to criticise someone as a "has been". And especially if they they haven't achieved much themselves either. Period. I didn't say anything about people not "being allowed to criticize anybody who got in a position of success or power" in general. I believe that one can criticize Woz (or anyone other in power/success/etc) all you want. Just not as a "has been", which doesn't really have any content as a critique anyway, and is basically an ad hominem. Want to criticize Woz? Find something specific to criticize. >Although I really think Woz is a great guy and that we historically owe him A LOT, one can't understate the fact that he's been operatively absent from the industry for a long time. So? How does that make them any less valid than anybody's arguments (e.g. in this thread)? I don't know, and don't care whether you or others in this thread have been "operatively present" in the industry recently or not -- I just care about their arguments. If rather you mean "Just because he is Woz, we shouldn't give more credit to what he says over anybody else", then that kind of goes without saying, it's the content that really matters, not the person.

jbpetersen 10y ago

To be cynically fair, almost no one is given serious attention when criticizing those in positions of greater success and power.