On Oct 6, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Nathan S. wrote:
> Bracketing that and focusing on JobsApple the Randoid Superhero, I'm glad to read that he was hostile to the word "innovation". The idea of running a stable UNIX-derived kernel on a heavily-controlled hardware base (hence the system's stability) is so 20th-century, as in, it's a Fordist production model, that it's amazing that Apple had to practically go bankrupt before doing it and that no one else did at all. You can have a Mac that works with any chipsets you want so long as they're the original ones it shipped with. What's amazing is that Apple was the only game in town doing this. Anyone could have, like Apple, grabbed the BSD kernel, stripped it to a restricted hardware universe, and written a software suite in either 100% portable, or 100% machine language, code base , and probably have achieved if not the commercial success the same technical one: a personal computer that just worked. Microsoft, which really introduced the PC (vs. IBM's failed efforts IIRC), was and is so, I don't know, I can't begin to diagnose the problem. The other marked JobsApple innovation was an eye to, yes, case/housing design. Apple IIRC introduced finger-friendly bolts back in the '80s on some models and has always made durable prodcuts, but JobsApple made them look good. They hired artists to do the icons, for example, at least, I think they did. The iPad is a retarded device and not innovative at all (it's a giant iPhone with slightly more power), but it sure looks good.
Hmm, could have fooled a few hundred million people, eh?
Doug