4 ms·

So are you saying its worth comprehensively ignoring OS X and Linux? They have never had anything close to 20% of the personal computer market.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
They have never to my knowledge paid anyone to surreptitiously lie to me either. That's what happens when you lie, in the future no one believes you. Also, isn't that what people do in reality anyway? I don't see an official version of e.g. Photoshop for Ubuntu, which I have to imagine would exist if it had >20% market share. And OS X does have >20% market share among those who use Photoshop, whereas pick your favorite non-web based line of business software and chances are it isn't available for OS X or Linux. Isn't that why everyone always says they aren't worth considering for business use? No software? Not enough market share?
- rednukleus 14y ago
  Well, here is an example of a blatant lie that Apple put in a newpaper magazine a long time ago: http://i.imgur.com/qq19rcD.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qq19rcD.jpg The famous "we invented the first personal computer system". I guess nobody can never believe anything they say again. Steam should probably stop selling games for OSX and Linux, as they don't represent anywhere near 20% of the market. Or should we just cherry pick some stat where they are over 20%? Let's do that with Windows Phone 8 too then. I'm sure they are over 20% usage of something, or will be soon. >20% usage of One Note? Or we could just judge technology on its merits, and take everything technology sites say about all of this stuff with a grain of salt.
  - venus 14y ago
    Is there an argumentative equivalent of "damning with faint praise"? Because if the best you can do to prove that Apple lied is pull out some black and white scan of a 30 year old newspaper ad where they might have taken a bit of license with the very fuzzily-defined term "personal computer", then you actually make it look like Apple is the most scrupulously honest corporation in the history of the world.
    - rednukleus 14y ago
      I used that as an example, because it is a very famous lie that they told. Parent comment didn't even bother giving any examples. Would you like to write up an encyclopedia of lies that Microsoft has told, or should I use your logic to assume that they must be more honest than Apple? Personally I don't think either of them are trustworthy.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    I'm not talking about advertisers who lie. That's pretty well the default -- everyone has already lost credibility there and no one should (or, as a general rule, does) believe anything subjective that anyone puts in a paid advertisement. But astroturf is lying about the lie. Review sites are operating under the flag of representing the consumer rather than the vendor. So now we can't even trust the reviewers when they review anything for which the vendor has demonstrated a willingness to pay for reviews. Now how am I supposed to know whether one of their devices is any good or is just being reviewed by someone who is being paid to say nice things about it? >Steam should probably stop selling games for OSX and Linux, as they don't represent anywhere near 20% of the market. You're assuming that a heuristic has to be an inviolable law of nature in order to be useful. If it's right most of the time, that makes it right most of the time. You take the exceptions on a case by case basis when you have reason to suspect that the situation is an atypical one and the cost of further investigation is less than the likely benefit of obtaining more information. >Or we could just judge technology on its merits, and take everything technology sites say about all of this stuff with a grain of salt. So then what are we supposed to use to judge the technology on its merits if we can't rely on what technology sites say about it? If I'm trying to decide whether to buy something, I can't very well go out and buy it in order to determine for myself whether I should go out and buy it. These things cost hundreds of dollars or require long-term contracts, and then I would have significant opportunity costs in configuring it with all my information and then having to export it all back out again if I don't like it. Which is exacerbated significantly by Microsoft's prolific NIH syndrome. So if I can't rely on reviewers then I have to rely on something else to tell me whether it's any good, like the market. Even if the market is wrong and the OS is not as mediocre as its share would indicate, the market is still right. App developers want to write for devices with users. Users want devices with apps. The device has to be a large enough improvement over the status quo to overcome that chicken and egg problem, and until it does, it's objectively worse for both developers and users than devices that already have. Microsoft has benefited from this dynamic for decades, it doesn't change just because now they're on the other side of it.
    - rednukleus 14y ago
      What evidence do you have that Microsoft are Astroturfing reviews more than their competitors (or that they are astroturfing at all)?

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

They have never to my knowledge paid anyone to surreptitiously lie to me either. That's what happens when you lie, in the future no one believes you. Also, isn't that what people do in reality anyway? I don't see an official version of e.g. Photoshop for Ubuntu, which I have to imagine would exist if it had >20% market share. And OS X does have >20% market share among those who use Photoshop, whereas pick your favorite non-web based line of business software and chances are it isn't available for OS X or Linux. Isn't that why everyone always says they aren't worth considering for business use? No software? Not enough market share?

rednukleus 14y ago
Well, here is an example of a blatant lie that Apple put in a newpaper magazine a long time ago: http://i.imgur.com/qq19rcD.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qq19rcD.jpg The famous "we invented the first personal computer system". I guess nobody can never believe anything they say again. Steam should probably stop selling games for OSX and Linux, as they don't represent anywhere near 20% of the market. Or should we just cherry pick some stat where they are over 20%? Let's do that with Windows Phone 8 too then. I'm sure they are over 20% usage of something, or will be soon. >20% usage of One Note? Or we could just judge technology on its merits, and take everything technology sites say about all of this stuff with a grain of salt.
- venus 14y ago
  Is there an argumentative equivalent of "damning with faint praise"? Because if the best you can do to prove that Apple lied is pull out some black and white scan of a 30 year old newspaper ad where they might have taken a bit of license with the very fuzzily-defined term "personal computer", then you actually make it look like Apple is the most scrupulously honest corporation in the history of the world.
  - rednukleus 14y ago
    I used that as an example, because it is a very famous lie that they told. Parent comment didn't even bother giving any examples. Would you like to write up an encyclopedia of lies that Microsoft has told, or should I use your logic to assume that they must be more honest than Apple? Personally I don't think either of them are trustworthy.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  I'm not talking about advertisers who lie. That's pretty well the default -- everyone has already lost credibility there and no one should (or, as a general rule, does) believe anything subjective that anyone puts in a paid advertisement. But astroturf is lying about the lie. Review sites are operating under the flag of representing the consumer rather than the vendor. So now we can't even trust the reviewers when they review anything for which the vendor has demonstrated a willingness to pay for reviews. Now how am I supposed to know whether one of their devices is any good or is just being reviewed by someone who is being paid to say nice things about it? >Steam should probably stop selling games for OSX and Linux, as they don't represent anywhere near 20% of the market. You're assuming that a heuristic has to be an inviolable law of nature in order to be useful. If it's right most of the time, that makes it right most of the time. You take the exceptions on a case by case basis when you have reason to suspect that the situation is an atypical one and the cost of further investigation is less than the likely benefit of obtaining more information. >Or we could just judge technology on its merits, and take everything technology sites say about all of this stuff with a grain of salt. So then what are we supposed to use to judge the technology on its merits if we can't rely on what technology sites say about it? If I'm trying to decide whether to buy something, I can't very well go out and buy it in order to determine for myself whether I should go out and buy it. These things cost hundreds of dollars or require long-term contracts, and then I would have significant opportunity costs in configuring it with all my information and then having to export it all back out again if I don't like it. Which is exacerbated significantly by Microsoft's prolific NIH syndrome. So if I can't rely on reviewers then I have to rely on something else to tell me whether it's any good, like the market. Even if the market is wrong and the OS is not as mediocre as its share would indicate, the market is still right. App developers want to write for devices with users. Users want devices with apps. The device has to be a large enough improvement over the status quo to overcome that chicken and egg problem, and until it does, it's objectively worse for both developers and users than devices that already have. Microsoft has benefited from this dynamic for decades, it doesn't change just because now they're on the other side of it.
  - rednukleus 14y ago
    What evidence do you have that Microsoft are Astroturfing reviews more than their competitors (or that they are astroturfing at all)?