3 ms·

You may be too young to remember, but as computers were first becoming popular, may people had a hard time understanding them. And no, computers didn't "suck".

• gareim 14y ago
  Yes they did. The first computers "sucked". They "sucked" in the sense that most people couldn't understand them. Computers got popular and people started understanding them as computers improved in usability. If Google+ becomes popular one day after numerous improvements, it's ridiculous to say that the first iteration of Google+ was successful just because future ones were.
  • wissler 14y ago
    So for you, something "sucks" if it fails to win a popularity contest. I find that definition meaningless. Computers didn't "suck", they were and are magnificent, every step of the way.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
• protomyth 14y ago
  The Altair 8800 for anybody but the die-hard hobbyist did "suck". It took other companies and other machines to show users why a computer was useful. Its not the user's fault for the misunderstanding.
  • wissler 14y ago
    So your premise is: if the masses do not understand, then it's not useful. The masses determine whether something "sucks" or not. I suppose the very fact that the word "sucks" being used to describe it goes along with your mentality.
    • protomyth 14y ago
      Got a bit of the nastiness going there with that interesting interpretation and the "your too young" stuff. If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed ("you suck") and need to redo or evolve your work. Computer most definitely were not magnificent every step of the way. When one of the great programs running on the Altair relied on its ability to interfere with radios near it, you can bet that it didn't impress the common man. Do some people still see the potential, yes, but that doesn't mean what's there is valuable in itself. It is clear that the product hasn't reached its potential if the users don't understand it. "Suck" is a perfectly valid term to explain ones dismay with something.
      • wissler 14y ago
        "Got a bit of the nastiness going there" Ever seen Idiocracy? Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's not. "If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed" Your standards are idiotic. The phrase "your users" is hopelessly vague. Which users? G+ has millions. Should it pander to each and every one or only the most idiotic of users? What if by making it easier to understand for the lowest common denominator, it makes the intelligent users go away? Your idiotic standards don't address this. Call me nasty if you want; I am simply citing the facts.
        • protomyth 14y ago
          I don't really see you citing any facts, just a lot of opinion. I guess saying G+ has millions of users is a fact with a rather large caveat. Google makes it very hard to avoid a G+ membership if you want to use other Google services. Elitism does not define greatness and simple does not mean idiotic. The iPod was successful because it was simple in usage, but it was not idiotic.
          • wissler 14y ago
            "I don't really see you citing any facts, just a lot of opinion." In your opinion. In my opinion, you're failing to address the argument I gave.