One drives innovation and competition, the other is total control and oppression. IE Android vs Apple!
Polar opposites. One works with cooperative system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs. They offer a wider selection and choice, which to some means greater confusion.
The other is where one body inflicts total control and oppresses any conflicting ideas in their aim to control and supply what they feel is required. It minimizes choice and hence makes the final decision simpler. Choice of one!
This appeals to two very different types of people, many of which have strong ideas and values with regards to their own ideals. Just like different religions!
Secondly, no one likes to be told they just made a bad decision, or wasted their money, whether it be true or not!
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I totally agree with programit@... where he likens the OS situation to religion - so true! And his final sentence, "Secondly, no one likes to be told they just made a bad decision, or wasted their money, whether it be true or not! ." hits the nail on the head and supports my argument (see later comment) - everyone suffers from personal insecurity and when it's pointed out to them that they've made a bad decision, that can heighten their personal insecurity and the natural reaction is to lash out. But by now, we should be mature enough to control our "natural reactions" and consider comments in a reasonable and logical way.
The line about your mother trying to delete the internet made me laugh. I can certainly relate, and it drove home to me the point of your article, in a strange way. Computers are simply tools, and where as we may like our favorite brands, when push comes to shove, if you really need to use a screwdriver, just about any will do. If the tools works, don't complain.
I wouldn't call it tribal, I'd call it infantile. Mature adults don't behave in the way that hard line brand supporters do when mindlessly putting down any alternative to their chosen brand. For a company like Apple to do as well as they have done/are doing with a closed system means they must be supplying what a lot of customers want. Similarly Microsoft and Google/Android must also supply what a lot of customers want. It's horses for courses. The trouble is that their are senior people in some of these companies who are also infantile in their behaviour. You only have to look at the Apple v Samsung legal battles. Why can't the CEOs of both companies have a chat, shake hands and agree that "I'll let you use my patents if you'll let me use yours." The trouble with this world imho can be summed up in 2 words: personal insecurity. Everyone suffers from this and it drives us in different directions, some constructive, some destructive. The callenge is to choose the constructive options.
Let me give an example of constructive behaviour. I had a neighbour who persistently parked his car in a location which made access to my driveway awkward (I live in a town that dates back to way before cars were invented). I wrote him what I thought was a poilte letter asking him to park 6 feet away from his usual parking spot and he replied with a nasty letter saying he'd park when and where he liked. I had 3 options:
1) Escalate the situation, e.g. by blocking his car whenever possible
2) Do nothing
3) Be as nice to the guy and his wife as possible.
I chose option 3 and it was most entertaining, helping the guy when he needed a jump start and in various other situations where he couldn't be nasty to me. In the end he changed his parking behaviour.
Apple, Samsung, Google, etc., (and their fanboys) have you thought of trying the "cooperation" approach instead of the "attack" approach. It does work and, lets be honest, there are enough customers in the world for many companies to coexist in harmony.
Let me give an example of constructive behaviour. I had a neighbour who persistently parked his car in a location which made access to my driveway awkward (I live in a town that dates back to way before cars were invented). I wrote him what I thought was a poilte letter asking him to park 6 feet away from his usual parking spot and he replied with a nasty letter saying he'd park when and where he liked. I had 3 options:
1) Escalate the situation, e.g. by blocking his car whenever possible
2) Do nothing
3) Be as nice to the guy and his wife as possible.
I chose option 3 and it was most entertaining, helping the guy when he needed a jump start and in various other situations where he couldn't be nasty to me. In the end he changed his parking behaviour.
Apple, Samsung, Google, etc., (and their fanboys) have you thought of trying the "cooperation" approach instead of the "attack" approach. It does work and, lets be honest, there are enough customers in the world for many companies to coexist in harmony.
Competition is generally a good thing, because it makes people, schools, companies, etc., work harder to excel. It loses its benefits, however, when it degenerates into a war. I have seen it in school rivalries, political campaigns, and disagreements on technology. A reasoned approach to a difference of opinion, with civilized discourse, can often lead to benefits for both sides, while a war, whether of words or actions, is no more than a bunch of people who are either unwilling or unable to carry on a logical, coherent conversation. It's so much easier to stick with a stereotypical view of the other guy; that way, you don't have to make the effort actually to think. As technical professionals, we should be above the rudeness of the bigots. Please try to avoid the flaming, fanboy, "mine's better than yours 'cause it's mine" mindset, and use these forums for what they.re designed for.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle

































