4 ms·

I won't comment on everything, because we all are entitled to have an opinion, but I don't think you took the time to read all the way through the article. Mayb

I won't comment on everything, because we all are entitled to have an opinion, but I don't think you took the time to read all the way through the article. Maybe you find it a waste of time, maybe you were simply not interested, and that's ok in either case. Anyway, I wasn't comparing computers and operating systems from 1995 to what we have today, regarding anything else than a few characteristics like objectivity and transparency. We never had so much concerning technology and it's impossible to compare whatever was done a few decades ago with what we have now. However, regarding the mindset that surrounds a product launch, I think that we are moving in the wrong direction for some time now. Imagine if the chart that you've posted here concerned video games, for instance. Wouldn't you agree it makes sense? The same applies to applications, to smartphones, web services... etc. I don't think it's absurd, but you're allowed to think differently.

wilsonnb 8y ago
I did read the entire article. Most of it more than once as I went looking for quotes to include in my comment. I get that you weren't trying to say that we should switch from a modern OS to one from the 90's. You make that clear. However, you absolutely spent most of the article comparing Windows 95 to modern day software. >Take the launch of Microsoft’s latest version of their operating system, Windows 10, for instance. No music, no comedians, no party, no fun and a lot of dubious statements. >I’m not saying we should solve every UI and UX issue with a start menu, but most web designs out there could surely learn a lot from how Windows 95 solved so many problems by thinking about how target users would deal with their product. >All 19MBs of Windows 95 consisted on useful tools that you could expect from a computer. There was no Cry Translator or Electric Shaver app — wonders of the modern day, available on any smartphone — as it was focused on a few objectives only. >Imagine if such a strange object as a phone that could only make calls existed. That would be the equivalent of Windows 95 on a computer back then. It had everything you ever needed from it, without the unnecessary waste of space. >What really stands out are the main qualities that Windows 95, as a product, had and that are not common nowadays. It had a memorable launch, it was honest regarding its objectives, focused on the user, objective and transparent. The problem I have with the chart is not that is shows junk and paid increasing - it's that it shows the utility decreasing. As a percentage of the junk/paid/utility trifecta, I might agree that utility's percentage is going down over time but the absolute quantity of utility has increased an insane amount in the last 23 years. Your chart does not show that, at least not very clearly. This quote is what precedes the graph: >Imagine if such a strange object as a phone that could only make calls existed. That would be the equivalent of Windows 95 on a computer back then. It had everything you ever needed from it, without the unnecessary waste of space. Phones like that do exist. You can get one for your house still. If you're willing to accept texting as a feature, you can get a cell phone like this. You seem to be arguing that such a device is somehow superior to an iPhone or my Pixel because it doesn't have the "unnecessary waste of space". You completely gloss over the fact that the utility section of the 2015 graph should have things like a web browser, Google or Apple Pay, Uber, Slack, Netflix, Spotify, GrubHub, and many others in it which make it substantially bigger than the 1995 graph.
- sandrobfc 8y ago
  Concerning the phones, I do know and I do own still a phone like that, I was just being sarcastic. I believe that the "free" utility is decreasing, leaving space for some junk no one really uses (any smartphone comes with dozens of functionalities that we'll never use but are paying for) and paid features. These last features add utility, but for some reason, they are not included originally. When I bought my first computer, with Windows 98, it came with Microsoft Office, Photoshop and a few other "free" tools. I've paid for the computer and those additional features were already there. It's added value that you now have to pay for and that's not only Microsoft's responsibility (at least, concerning Photoshop). The same way you have to pay for several of the apps you've listed, such as Uber, Netflix, some Google services, Spotify premium... I don't recall the existence of "premium features" for what I used in 1995, but Spotify is the perfect example of what I illustrated in the graph. The free version adds some utility, the paid version increases its utility and there's some junk in between that no one really listens to.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    I kind of agree with you on this, but I don't think Spotify is a good example. It's not like the 1995 equivalent of Spotify was free unless you were pirating all of your music. Uber and Netflix are similar in that they replace taxis and cable TV respectively. Anyways, if you can, I'd suggest putting another paragraph above or below the graph in the article explaining what you've said in this comment. I did not get this point from reading the article and I think a lot of other people will also struggle with it.
    - sandrobfc 8y ago
      Well, I don't think there's a good equivalent of Spotify in the 90s, people just bought or downloaded what they wanted to hear. My point is that now we have this "free" software that, sure, you can download for free, but you'll need to pay if you want to use all its features. I will provide an additional explanation in the text to clarify this part. Thanks for your feedback!

wilsonnb 8y ago

I did read the entire article. Most of it more than once as I went looking for quotes to include in my comment. I get that you weren't trying to say that we should switch from a modern OS to one from the 90's. You make that clear. However, you absolutely spent most of the article comparing Windows 95 to modern day software. >Take the launch of Microsoft’s latest version of their operating system, Windows 10, for instance. No music, no comedians, no party, no fun and a lot of dubious statements. >I’m not saying we should solve every UI and UX issue with a start menu, but most web designs out there could surely learn a lot from how Windows 95 solved so many problems by thinking about how target users would deal with their product. >All 19MBs of Windows 95 consisted on useful tools that you could expect from a computer. There was no Cry Translator or Electric Shaver app — wonders of the modern day, available on any smartphone — as it was focused on a few objectives only. >Imagine if such a strange object as a phone that could only make calls existed. That would be the equivalent of Windows 95 on a computer back then. It had everything you ever needed from it, without the unnecessary waste of space. >What really stands out are the main qualities that Windows 95, as a product, had and that are not common nowadays. It had a memorable launch, it was honest regarding its objectives, focused on the user, objective and transparent. The problem I have with the chart is not that is shows junk and paid increasing - it's that it shows the utility decreasing. As a percentage of the junk/paid/utility trifecta, I might agree that utility's percentage is going down over time but the absolute quantity of utility has increased an insane amount in the last 23 years. Your chart does not show that, at least not very clearly. This quote is what precedes the graph: >Imagine if such a strange object as a phone that could only make calls existed. That would be the equivalent of Windows 95 on a computer back then. It had everything you ever needed from it, without the unnecessary waste of space. Phones like that do exist. You can get one for your house still. If you're willing to accept texting as a feature, you can get a cell phone like this. You seem to be arguing that such a device is somehow superior to an iPhone or my Pixel because it doesn't have the "unnecessary waste of space". You completely gloss over the fact that the utility section of the 2015 graph should have things like a web browser, Google or Apple Pay, Uber, Slack, Netflix, Spotify, GrubHub, and many others in it which make it substantially bigger than the 1995 graph.

sandrobfc 8y ago
Concerning the phones, I do know and I do own still a phone like that, I was just being sarcastic. I believe that the "free" utility is decreasing, leaving space for some junk no one really uses (any smartphone comes with dozens of functionalities that we'll never use but are paying for) and paid features. These last features add utility, but for some reason, they are not included originally. When I bought my first computer, with Windows 98, it came with Microsoft Office, Photoshop and a few other "free" tools. I've paid for the computer and those additional features were already there. It's added value that you now have to pay for and that's not only Microsoft's responsibility (at least, concerning Photoshop). The same way you have to pay for several of the apps you've listed, such as Uber, Netflix, some Google services, Spotify premium... I don't recall the existence of "premium features" for what I used in 1995, but Spotify is the perfect example of what I illustrated in the graph. The free version adds some utility, the paid version increases its utility and there's some junk in between that no one really listens to.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I kind of agree with you on this, but I don't think Spotify is a good example. It's not like the 1995 equivalent of Spotify was free unless you were pirating all of your music. Uber and Netflix are similar in that they replace taxis and cable TV respectively. Anyways, if you can, I'd suggest putting another paragraph above or below the graph in the article explaining what you've said in this comment. I did not get this point from reading the article and I think a lot of other people will also struggle with it.
  - sandrobfc 8y ago
    Well, I don't think there's a good equivalent of Spotify in the 90s, people just bought or downloaded what they wanted to hear. My point is that now we have this "free" software that, sure, you can download for free, but you'll need to pay if you want to use all its features. I will provide an additional explanation in the text to clarify this part. Thanks for your feedback!