3 ms·

You are stretching what the author wrote, rather than the author stretching the word "tablet". If you read the essay, the author begins by describing IBM's str

by pohl 16y ago

You are stretching what the author wrote, rather than the author stretching the word "tablet". If you read the essay, the author begins by describing IBM's strategies for responding to new competition, and how Microsoft learned from them. The prediction by Gates about the iPhone is a mere illustration of this. It could have been any example of similar posturing and have been relevant. That it is about the iPhone is incidental. This particular illustration was probably picked only for how it juxtaposes nicely against Mundie's similar posture about the iPad last week.

saurik 16y ago
Again, I specifically am speaking of the HN post and the link-bait title. I did not make any moment on the article: you made that part up (like rbarooah).
- pohl 16y ago
  I see. Your comment at the end about the link-bait title seemed out of place with the rest of your post. If that was your main point, then the irrelevant bit about the iPhone and the blurring with tablets really distracted from it. Perhaps you thought the word 'fad' in the headline was drawn from the 2007 Bill Gates quotation? I didn't read it that way at all. Rather, to me it came off as a shorter Mundie, and an entirely uncontroversial paraphrase of what he said. He was savvy enough to avoid the word 'fad' in his statement, but he casted enough doubt on the longevity of tablets to invoke the spectre of the 2007 quotation by Gates. Edit: I like the distillation of your point below, and find it vote-worthy. +1
  - saurik 16y ago
    The user who posted this to HN decided to use the title "Commentary on Microsoft's stand that Tablets are a passing fad"; this is an importantly different connotation than "Microsoft: Tablets are a passing fad", which was the actual title of the article being linked to. The former's usage of the word "stance" is much more direct: it implies that Microsoft has officially made firm statements on this matter. Instead, you get to the article and read commentary (no matter how well informed or interesting; I do not wish to comment on that) about "mixed messages" from the guy who runs Microsoft Research.

by pohl 16y ago

saurik 16y ago

Again, I specifically am speaking of the HN post and the link-bait title. I did not make any moment on the article: you made that part up (like rbarooah).

pohl 16y ago
I see. Your comment at the end about the link-bait title seemed out of place with the rest of your post. If that was your main point, then the irrelevant bit about the iPhone and the blurring with tablets really distracted from it. Perhaps you thought the word 'fad' in the headline was drawn from the 2007 Bill Gates quotation? I didn't read it that way at all. Rather, to me it came off as a shorter Mundie, and an entirely uncontroversial paraphrase of what he said. He was savvy enough to avoid the word 'fad' in his statement, but he casted enough doubt on the longevity of tablets to invoke the spectre of the 2007 quotation by Gates. Edit: I like the distillation of your point below, and find it vote-worthy. +1
- saurik 16y ago
  The user who posted this to HN decided to use the title "Commentary on Microsoft's stand that Tablets are a passing fad"; this is an importantly different connotation than "Microsoft: Tablets are a passing fad", which was the actual title of the article being linked to. The former's usage of the word "stance" is much more direct: it implies that Microsoft has officially made firm statements on this matter. Instead, you get to the article and read commentary (no matter how well informed or interesting; I do not wish to comment on that) about "mixed messages" from the guy who runs Microsoft Research.