3 ms·

Jobs was wrong. Not just a bit wrong, totally wrong. Computers are tools. Do you see grinder manufacturers say "we only need one type of disk, because people s

Jobs was wrong. Not just a bit wrong, totally wrong. Computers are tools. Do you see grinder manufacturers say "we only need one type of disk, because people should not have to remember whether they need a diamond blade for masonry or a metal cutting one?" You do not. There is a frame in which Jobs is correct - the frame in which computers are not tools, but devices intended for the passive consumption of content produced by others. A frame in which tool using never requires skill acquisition (a total inversion of tool use among (at least) humans for (at least) 10's of thousands of years. No, he was wrong, and if he was right, I refuse to live in that version of the world.

zokier 3y ago
Reducing required operator skill level and training needed is absolutely major driver in commercial/industrial equipment development, and has been throughout the industrial era. If production line is able to specify just one standardized cutting disk, even if suboptimal otherwise, instead of requiring worker to choose between multiple ones, then it definitely can happen. Its very romanticized view to think that the world runs on highly skilled craftspeople using finely honed chest of tools.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > Reducing required operator skill level and training needed is absolutely major driver in commercial/industrial equipment development No, it is an imperative driven by capitalism. Employees don't want this. Tool users don't want this (because as you note, if the blade can cut everything it likely doesn't cut anything very well). The motivation for the kind of tool development you're referring to is not the development of improved tools, but reduced labor costs (and sometimes, possibly, tighter tolerances). That's not a model for tools explicitly marketed (by Jobs!) as tools for everyone.
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    > if the blade can cut everything it likely doesn't cut anything very well Haha. Sounds like Java/C#/Go. All corporate (Oracle/Microsoft/Google) languages. Coincidence? ;p
Dalewyn 3y ago
Au contraire, that diamond blade cuts masonry and masonry only. It doesn't cut masonry and metal, so you don't need to remember "Does this blade also cut this too?". The grinder grinds and grinds only, it doesn't also make you breakfast. Likewise, Apple mice only ever click. It doesn't left and right click. Speaking more broadly, Apple computers only ever do One Apple Way(tm). They don't do One Apple Way(tm) and also IBM-compatible/Windows/Linux. Tools are supposed to be simple in design, because their value is in them delivering results quickly and easily for everyone. And most people using computers want results because computers are tools, they couldn't care less about the process other than keeping it as simple as possible. I would be the last person on the planet to defend Jobs or Apple's philosophy, but I will give credit where credit is due because they by far understand human psychology the best out of everyone in the tech industry.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > Likewise, Apple mice only ever click. Precisely. It's like DeWalt or Milwaukee only making a diamond blade, because "you never need to cut metal, and you shouldn't have to think about that anyway". > Tools are supposed to be simple in design, because their value is in them delivering results quickly and easily for everyone. This is not the history of human tools.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  People have three fingers on the mouse and there is nothing obvious or simple in the fact that they must use only one of the three fingers. According to your theory, most people should cut their extra fingers, because it is too difficult for them to remember that they can do and they should do different actions with each finger. The user must input eventually the same information with a 1-button Apple mouse or a 2-button Microsoft mouse or a 3-button Mouse Systems mouse. An Apple user must compensate the lack of mouse buttons by either making multiple mouse clicks or pressing simultaneously with the mouse various keyboard keys. All these additional actions are slower, more complicated and harder to remember than the task of a user who must just choose with which finger to click. So no, the idea that a one-button mouse is simpler for the user is just wrong. In fact it is both slower and more complicated.

zokier 3y ago

Reducing required operator skill level and training needed is absolutely major driver in commercial/industrial equipment development, and has been throughout the industrial era. If production line is able to specify just one standardized cutting disk, even if suboptimal otherwise, instead of requiring worker to choose between multiple ones, then it definitely can happen. Its very romanticized view to think that the world runs on highly skilled craftspeople using finely honed chest of tools.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> Reducing required operator skill level and training needed is absolutely major driver in commercial/industrial equipment development No, it is an imperative driven by capitalism. Employees don't want this. Tool users don't want this (because as you note, if the blade can cut everything it likely doesn't cut anything very well). The motivation for the kind of tool development you're referring to is not the development of improved tools, but reduced labor costs (and sometimes, possibly, tighter tolerances). That's not a model for tools explicitly marketed (by Jobs!) as tools for everyone.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  > if the blade can cut everything it likely doesn't cut anything very well Haha. Sounds like Java/C#/Go. All corporate (Oracle/Microsoft/Google) languages. Coincidence? ;p

Dalewyn 3y ago

Au contraire, that diamond blade cuts masonry and masonry only. It doesn't cut masonry and metal, so you don't need to remember "Does this blade also cut this too?". The grinder grinds and grinds only, it doesn't also make you breakfast. Likewise, Apple mice only ever click. It doesn't left and right click. Speaking more broadly, Apple computers only ever do One Apple Way(tm). They don't do One Apple Way(tm) and also IBM-compatible/Windows/Linux. Tools are supposed to be simple in design, because their value is in them delivering results quickly and easily for everyone. And most people using computers want results because computers are tools, they couldn't care less about the process other than keeping it as simple as possible. I would be the last person on the planet to defend Jobs or Apple's philosophy, but I will give credit where credit is due because they by far understand human psychology the best out of everyone in the tech industry.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> Likewise, Apple mice only ever click. Precisely. It's like DeWalt or Milwaukee only making a diamond blade, because "you never need to cut metal, and you shouldn't have to think about that anyway". > Tools are supposed to be simple in design, because their value is in them delivering results quickly and easily for everyone. This is not the history of human tools.
adrian_b 3y ago
People have three fingers on the mouse and there is nothing obvious or simple in the fact that they must use only one of the three fingers. According to your theory, most people should cut their extra fingers, because it is too difficult for them to remember that they can do and they should do different actions with each finger. The user must input eventually the same information with a 1-button Apple mouse or a 2-button Microsoft mouse or a 3-button Mouse Systems mouse. An Apple user must compensate the lack of mouse buttons by either making multiple mouse clicks or pressing simultaneously with the mouse various keyboard keys. All these additional actions are slower, more complicated and harder to remember than the task of a user who must just choose with which finger to click. So no, the idea that a one-button mouse is simpler for the user is just wrong. In fact it is both slower and more complicated.