3 ms·
Either the author does not know the meaning of the word "Luddite", or is making presumptions on what people value in technology. Kyle Wiens was clear: Apple wa
by polemic 14y ago
Either the author does not know the meaning of the word "Luddite", or is making presumptions on what people value in technology.
Kyle Wiens was clear: Apple was experimenting with two divergent strategies - small, portable and inflexible vs larger, modifiable and upgradeable. Neither is anti-technology or anti-progress, they're just different paths.
Instead, Nick first assumes that the first option represents progress and draws his inference from there. This allows him to look down his nose at Kyle's clearly superior knowledge of Apple's product history and strategy.
Of course, this is ass-backward.
EDIT: --
Well there you go. John Gruber, who snarkily wrote off Kyles well written analysis as a whine, has linked back to Nicks categorical imperative.
I'm sorry, but that is the worst sort of circle jerk.
- hsmyers 14y agoWhen he says "Do we imagine that such progress is achieved through the kind of Luddite thinking that leads people to value "hackability" over never-before-achieved levels of precision and portability?" he pretty much proves that he does not understand either the word Luddite or it's origins. Essentially Ned Ludd was rebelling over looms that had been 'hacked' with the technology of the day. A complete contradiction to what the author said.
- polemic 14y agoAnd let's be honest, referencing Avatar, Minority Report and moral philosophy(!) raise a few red flags about the quality of the argument too :D