4 ms·

So you purchased a standard, no-frills car that provides full technical accessibility and used that to make unnecessary modifications to it. Then, you used said

by kaiuhl 16y ago

So you purchased a standard, no-frills car that provides full technical accessibility and used that to make unnecessary modifications to it. Then, you used said tweaked automobile as an example of opaque car design in a discussion about iPad? Making suspension and interior tweaks are not necessary for piloting your vehicle. Unfortunately, Windows Update and some level of technical sophistication is necessary for running the modern PC. You're arguing against your own point—you don't need technical expertise in any possible way to run and maintain your Hyundai. iPad is arguably one of the first computers to adopt this model.

leviathant 16y ago
stcredzero compared the iPad to cars. dmlorenzetti said " the analogy seems flawed". kaiuhl said "I entirely disagree," intimating that the analogy was not flawed. My retort further demonstrates how unlike a car an iPad is, in the hope that the reader would also agree that the analogy is in fact flawed. In your reply, you say "you don't need technical expertise in any possible way to run and maintain your Hyundai" - given that I take my car to a garage for maintenance and oil changes, that's not at all true. A bad analogy is like a fish.
Goladus 16y ago
The problem with the whole thing is that computers are not cars. Cars do one thing: get from a to b. Whether "getting from a to b" is an experience to be enjoyed or endured is a matter of preference, but ultimately the car still serves a single purpose. The single purpose served by a computer is so abstract that it's not even worth mentioning here. Practically, computers serve hundreds of different purposes, and that is why the analogy fails.
- snowbird122 16y ago
  I can tell that you aren't into cars. People that are into cars really get a lot more than the A to B utility. they identify with cars. They drive them for the sake of driving. They race. They accessorize. They like the way driving their car makes them feel. I'm not a car guy myself, so I can't elaborate, however, I know some of these people, and they think computers are mostly "single purpose". It is all about perspective.
  - Goladus 16y ago
    You have to be an enthusiast to really get the difference, though. That's not true with computers, and is the whole point. Take enthusiasts out of the picture entirely, and computers still have a variety of uses, cars have essentially one, or maybe two if you live in it.
    - snowbird122 16y ago
      I wonder which has more enthusiasts. :) Regardless, I think the analogy still makes sense.
      - Goladus 16y ago
        It makes sense as an analogy but it's not valid evidence supporting the argument. The argument is that usability matters more than capability and that's why the iPad will ultimately win the mainstream. In mainstream use, computers simply have more diverse capability than cars. (note that this is NOT the case with mobile phones-- while mobile phones have diverse capability and people use them for lots of different things, if all you could do was make calls, send text, email, use GPS and do basic web browsing people would still buy them)

by kaiuhl 16y ago

leviathant 16y ago

stcredzero compared the iPad to cars. dmlorenzetti said " the analogy seems flawed". kaiuhl said "I entirely disagree," intimating that the analogy was not flawed. My retort further demonstrates how unlike a car an iPad is, in the hope that the reader would also agree that the analogy is in fact flawed. In your reply, you say "you don't need technical expertise in any possible way to run and maintain your Hyundai" - given that I take my car to a garage for maintenance and oil changes, that's not at all true. A bad analogy is like a fish.

Goladus 16y ago

The problem with the whole thing is that computers are not cars. Cars do one thing: get from a to b. Whether "getting from a to b" is an experience to be enjoyed or endured is a matter of preference, but ultimately the car still serves a single purpose. The single purpose served by a computer is so abstract that it's not even worth mentioning here. Practically, computers serve hundreds of different purposes, and that is why the analogy fails.

snowbird122 16y ago
I can tell that you aren't into cars. People that are into cars really get a lot more than the A to B utility. they identify with cars. They drive them for the sake of driving. They race. They accessorize. They like the way driving their car makes them feel. I'm not a car guy myself, so I can't elaborate, however, I know some of these people, and they think computers are mostly "single purpose". It is all about perspective.
- Goladus 16y ago
  You have to be an enthusiast to really get the difference, though. That's not true with computers, and is the whole point. Take enthusiasts out of the picture entirely, and computers still have a variety of uses, cars have essentially one, or maybe two if you live in it.
  - snowbird122 16y ago
    I wonder which has more enthusiasts. :) Regardless, I think the analogy still makes sense.
    - Goladus 16y ago
      It makes sense as an analogy but it's not valid evidence supporting the argument. The argument is that usability matters more than capability and that's why the iPad will ultimately win the mainstream. In mainstream use, computers simply have more diverse capability than cars. (note that this is NOT the case with mobile phones-- while mobile phones have diverse capability and people use them for lots of different things, if all you could do was make calls, send text, email, use GPS and do basic web browsing people would still buy them)