3 ms·
You can disagree with us, but our motives are pure. I think that's the main problem. It's not enough to simply have pure motives. Nobody actually understands t
by tmsh 16y ago
You can disagree with us, but our motives are pure.
I think that's the main problem. It's not enough to simply have pure motives. Nobody actually understands the complete extent or realization of their motives, and whether or not they're truly 'pure'. Hence, the importance of listening.
You can 'envision' all you want, but if you don't have good feedback loops, you're going to run into serious problems.
- flyosity 16y agoThe motives may be complex but I'm guessing it comes down to Apple not wanting garbage clunking up their beautiful and "magical" device. Random runtime environments that Apple can't control? Hell no. Cross-platform apps that use the lowest common denominator of features and are slow? Nope, sorry. Apps that sit outside the walled garden that might be nefarious? Yeah, right. Jobs wants elegant and beautiful apps on his "revolutionary" device. If it's not one or both of those things, then he's probably not happy with it and doesn't want users to see it.
- tmsh 16y agoI didn't notice it until reading your response, but I suppose there's a pun on 'pure'. Pure environment, pure performance ('not wanting garbage clunking up their beautiful and "magical" device' as you mention), and also pure as in honest. But purity is not really a word you want to overload.... Fundamentally incoherent to conflate two ideas about purity. And really deeply problematic. Anyhoo, thx for your thoughts.