7 ms·

Yeah, who needs type and memory safety, a large standard library, OO via interfaces, structural typing, garbage collection, functions as first class citizens, c

Yeah, who needs type and memory safety, a large standard library, OO via interfaces, structural typing, garbage collection, functions as first class citizens, closures, blisteringly fast build times or easy concurrency.....

enneff 13y ago
It's a reference to CmdrTaco's impressively off-base assessment of the first iPod: http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip...
- voidlogic 13y ago
  haha, thanks :)
- icebraining 13y ago
  It wasn't really off-base, it's just that his opinion doesn't correlate very well with the general public's. That said, it's fun to read the old thread. I like this comment from dbrutus: Do you want revolutionary? Ask yourself, what chip is this running? Ask yourself, what is the OS on this thing? This is v0.8 of Apple's PDA folks. They're just waiting for the hardware and the economy to get a little better.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >It wasn't really off-base, it's just that his opinion doesn't correlate very well with the general public's. Well, opinions can be off base too. Especially in engineering matters. For example he was totally off base that wireless would be feasible in a 2001 machine, with adequate battery life and performance -- or that it would offer any benefit at the time. He was also totally off base in commenting about the "less space than a nomad" being lame, ignoring the fact that the iPod was also far more pocketable. Plus, he deemed it "lame" (probably just for those two reasons) without even commenting on the vastly improved navigation and user experience compared to everything that was there before. Again, off base.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > For example he was totally off base that wireless would be feasible in a 2001 machine, with adequate battery life and performance Well I mean, he presumably thought the Nomad was cool, indicating that massive size (nearly a pound!) and shit battery life were not really important to him. The Nokia 9500 came out 3 years later with WiFi and was pretty small, even by today's standards. Could they have put WiFi into a device the size/weight of a Nomad 3 years earlier, and gotten at least some shitty battery life out of it? I suspect so. "Lame-ness" is an opinion, not really something that you could call objectively wrong. (Though obviously I think we all agree that his degree that the iPod was lame was itself lame). Had he said "there is no market for this" instead of merely implying it, then he would have been wrong in a more objective way.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Adequate battery life and perfomance and the importance of pocketability and improved UX are all subjective. (Personally, I always thought iPods had a terrible UX for forcing you to use iTunes instead of just mounting the drive). And that he just took into account those two reasons is just speculation.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >Adequate battery life and perfomance and the importance of pocketability and improved UX are all subjective. It's true that "adequate battery life" does not have a hard, very specific answer, and it's more of a range (and also depends on the capabilities of the era and what users are used to have). But it's still not "all subjective". E.g if somebody says "1 hour mp3 player battery life is totally fine for me" -- doesn't mean he has a valid opinion that people should respect. In fact, he would probably be laughed off any product design meeting. (Sure, it can be fine "for him". But that's like saying "being hit with a stick if fine for me" if you are a masochist. In no way it represents what would work for most people). >Personally, I always thought iPods had a terrible UX for forcing you to use iTunes instead of just mounting the drive That was its definitive advantage. Just mounting the drive would be the backwards option, for people used to manage their own directories instead of letting the computer do it for them. With iTunes they got people to also grasp the concept of file metadata, playlists, arbitrary organization based on tags and smart playlist queries, etc. And it opened the road for work on them offering a Store, iTunes Match et al. >And that he just took into account those two reasons is just speculation. It's based on the only data we have. What he actually said, and the reasons he gave for saying it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

enneff 13y ago

It's a reference to CmdrTaco's impressively off-base assessment of the first iPod: http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip...

voidlogic 13y ago
haha, thanks :)
icebraining 13y ago
It wasn't really off-base, it's just that his opinion doesn't correlate very well with the general public's. That said, it's fun to read the old thread. I like this comment from dbrutus: Do you want revolutionary? Ask yourself, what chip is this running? Ask yourself, what is the OS on this thing? This is v0.8 of Apple's PDA folks. They're just waiting for the hardware and the economy to get a little better.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It wasn't really off-base, it's just that his opinion doesn't correlate very well with the general public's. Well, opinions can be off base too. Especially in engineering matters. For example he was totally off base that wireless would be feasible in a 2001 machine, with adequate battery life and performance -- or that it would offer any benefit at the time. He was also totally off base in commenting about the "less space than a nomad" being lame, ignoring the fact that the iPod was also far more pocketable. Plus, he deemed it "lame" (probably just for those two reasons) without even commenting on the vastly improved navigation and user experience compared to everything that was there before. Again, off base.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > For example he was totally off base that wireless would be feasible in a 2001 machine, with adequate battery life and performance Well I mean, he presumably thought the Nomad was cool, indicating that massive size (nearly a pound!) and shit battery life were not really important to him. The Nokia 9500 came out 3 years later with WiFi and was pretty small, even by today's standards. Could they have put WiFi into a device the size/weight of a Nomad 3 years earlier, and gotten at least some shitty battery life out of it? I suspect so. "Lame-ness" is an opinion, not really something that you could call objectively wrong. (Though obviously I think we all agree that his degree that the iPod was lame was itself lame). Had he said "there is no market for this" instead of merely implying it, then he would have been wrong in a more objective way.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Adequate battery life and perfomance and the importance of pocketability and improved UX are all subjective. (Personally, I always thought iPods had a terrible UX for forcing you to use iTunes instead of just mounting the drive). And that he just took into account those two reasons is just speculation.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Adequate battery life and perfomance and the importance of pocketability and improved UX are all subjective. It's true that "adequate battery life" does not have a hard, very specific answer, and it's more of a range (and also depends on the capabilities of the era and what users are used to have). But it's still not "all subjective". E.g if somebody says "1 hour mp3 player battery life is totally fine for me" -- doesn't mean he has a valid opinion that people should respect. In fact, he would probably be laughed off any product design meeting. (Sure, it can be fine "for him". But that's like saying "being hit with a stick if fine for me" if you are a masochist. In no way it represents what would work for most people). >Personally, I always thought iPods had a terrible UX for forcing you to use iTunes instead of just mounting the drive That was its definitive advantage. Just mounting the drive would be the backwards option, for people used to manage their own directories instead of letting the computer do it for them. With iTunes they got people to also grasp the concept of file metadata, playlists, arbitrary organization based on tags and smart playlist queries, etc. And it opened the road for work on them offering a Store, iTunes Match et al. >And that he just took into account those two reasons is just speculation. It's based on the only data we have. What he actually said, and the reasons he gave for saying it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]