4 ms·
Ooo yes, it's so stilted and unnatural and transparently done on purpose. It's nearly as bad as people referring to a baby as just "baby" rather than "the baby
by adhesive_wombat 4y ago
Ooo yes, it's so stilted and unnatural and transparently done on purpose.
It's nearly as bad as people referring to a baby as just "baby" rather than "the baby" or "your baby".
- hbn 4y agoReferring to their products as a proper noun is an old Jobs-ism that he intentionally did. I'm pretty sure it goes all the way back to the original Macintosh, that he wanted to be referred to as just "Macintosh" in all the marketing material, and his on-stage announcement.
- rootusrootus 4y agoIt also predates Apple by a long time. Steve Jobs didn't invent this, though he did use it.
- adolph 4y ago"Think Different" Missing "ly" transforms two words from humdrum imperative verb/adjective pairing to action whose object is enigmatic, provocative and whose verb stands strong, without qualification. (I attempted to write this without articles. I don't really agree with using "whose" but needed a replacement to "for which the") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)
- schroeding 4y agoThey just took a page from the Columbo[1] playbook. Why use names when you just can call it "baby". :D [1] https://youtu.be/pZ0PzRuAv0Y?t=108 https://youtu.be/pZ0PzRuAv0Y?t=108