i totally get where you are coming from and it can get supes frustrating. worry not, man. if we all agreed this wouldnt be a 'discussion' board... ![]()
Gotta laugh sometimes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2926027220100429
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Gotta laugh sometimes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2926027220100429
Discussion is locked
i totally get where you are coming from and it can get supes frustrating. worry not, man. if we all agreed this wouldnt be a 'discussion' board... ![]()
Even upthread here, you say that a CEO can be expected to add a bit of propaganda in correspondence such as this. So then the question becomes "what are we to believe"? Should we believe him when he says his real beef is for open WEB standards and ignore other parts of the missive that might be suspect?
It goes to credibility, and you can't have it both ways. You want the letter judged on face value? Well, face value means the entirety of the letter and the context of the when/why it was penned, AND not just selected portions. And that goes to motivation and believability, as well as past history of the parties involved. None of this occurs in a vacuum. And there IS a history.
And I go back to my original point about closed/proprietary systems --regardless of whether they are web-based or OS-based or whatever. He's using the "closed system" moniker as a pejorative. Your argument in his defense seems to be "well, it's only bad when it's a web-based closed system". Sorry, no dice. If "closed system" is defined as inherently a bad thing --no matter the context-- then it's a bad thing, and THAT'S where the hypocrisy lies. You can't say "CLOSED SYSTEMS ARE BAD!! --(umm, except in the ways we use them)". That's what he's essentially trying to say, in my opinion. He's trying to demonize Adobe's implementation while paying lip service --if that-- to his own company's philosophy.
In the end, no matter. When people find a free option, they're going to gravitate toward it if it can provide a similar or better level of performance. Of course, H.264 isn't really free as such. I think all of this changes when Google unleashes VP8 for free use.
Your whole argument hinges on an assumption that someone is categorically condemning ALL closed systems. Problem is that this was never said (nor was it even implied). Jobs openly admitted that Apple has closed proprietary products just like Adobe. Why on earth would he admit such a thing if he were trying to paint all closed systems as evil? This is what he said:
"Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open." http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
That's it. Nowhere does he claim that open products is always good or that closed products are always bad. He simply said that when it comes to the web, Apple believes in open standards. He didn't launch into a speech grandstanding about the companies firm belief in the philosophical or moral superiority of open systems. The only people who would claim he made these kinds of sweeping statements are ideologues who think in absolutes and assume everyone else must be doing the same. They are looking for a soapbox so who cares if the complexities of the truth get in the way?
And this is exactly what I was talking about in my post to Robstak just above. People are are going nuts around the web inventing rebuttals to supposedly "hypocritical" statements that were never actually made. And given the viral and sensationalist nature of the web, these false assumptions get passed around from person to person until lots of people start to believe that's what was originally said. Its not unlike political chain emails. At least we have snopes.com for them.
He really believes what he's saying, but when it comes to his company is putting money first and any justification will do.
So that's why I think he still has credibility even though it's hypocritical.
it could easily be argued that those who ignore what Jobs actually said and create a ?hypocritical? strawman to beat down for the open source cause (and/or page hits) are the ones suffering from cognitive dissonance. The reality of what was actually said does not fit neatly into the opposing political position they want to attack so they must spin the story (ignore or gloss over facts, speculate on what Jobs' actually meant, etc).
Now it?s just as unfair for me to speculate about these people?s motives as much as it is to speculate about Jobs? motives. So let?s stick with the facts and stop with the speculation. The guy never claimed open was always good (or that closed was always bad) nor did he try to hide or apologize for Apple's own proprietary products. I'm sorry that doesn't make for a juicy story ripe for rebuttal but it is what it is.
I think it?s shameful that so many bloggers have jumped on the supposed ?hypocrisy? angle without even bothering to read the original posting.
"Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true."
Let me repeat the salient passage: "...BUT IN FACT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE."
This is absurd. Now, I know...you're going to parse it out to say "he means web standards, blah blah blah". But those are his words. Adobe is closed. Apple is "Open", in whatever way Steve Jobs is now going to define the term.
Of course, now we must all accept the Jobs definition of what constitutes "open" as applicable to the rest of the computer world.
It's laughable. So much for the hypocritical strawman.
Parse away...I'm done with this thread.
claiming "I already know what you are going to say" you have become a victim of the very cognitive dissonance that you claim afflicts Jobs. How do you "know" what I am gojng to say? How do you "know" what goes on inside Jobs' mind to the point where your diagnoses trumps his words?
Who knows what Jobs' meant with that statement about "in fact the opposite of true". Maybe he meant flash isn't open like they claim it to be and wasn't thinking about Apple? Maybe he made a mistake in his sentence construction? Maybe his is a suffering from "cognitive dissonance" I don;t know. But given that nothing else in the letter supports the last theory I think is a real long shot.
It is interesting that you think others are "parsing" when you cherry pick a half of a single sentence out of a page and a half letter to support your psychological diagnoses of a man you don't know.
I finally came back here after seeing continuing activity on the thread (after admittedly saying I wouldn't, lol...guilty!).
OK, up thread you said this, and I quote: "Please point to [a] passage in his open letter where Jobs actually claims that Apple is any more open than Adobe or that Apple believes everything involving computers must be open."
My reply (from the Jobs Letter):
"Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true."
I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would agree that the words above absolutely meet your request for such evidence.
sentence out of a 1600 word letter to support an assertion that some guy is a hypocrite is what most people would consider the very definition of "parsing".
It's very convinent for jobs to limit his definition of open to the world wide web. And although sure openness is much more important there as the web needs to work on all devices. It's still a bit of a double standard to say openness is vital on the Internet but a phone OS should be closed.
There is indeed a stress here between the plan of Apple to quality control their platform and a professed concern, which I even believe is genuine, for the openness of the Internet.
You asked for a passage, and I gave it to you, verbatim. Now you're trying to give him cover by calling it "clumsily written". Come on...
At some point, you have to admit the obvious. Those were his words, whether they were "clumsy" or not (and who are you to make that call??) I didn't see any condition of your request for a passage as to whether it passed the "clumsy" test. I think the better part of valor would be to just stipulate it.
You can try to argue his real intent, but --as you also said-- I don't know him and I'm guessing you don't, either. One could easily assert that those words I quoted reflected his real views, and the rest of his letter was his "clumsy" attempt to establish his definition of open vs. closed. But hey, we don't know him personally, so we're not at liberty to make such judgments. We kind of have to take him at his word(s).
I've done my part in giving you exactly what you asked for up thread. Let's move on.
Again, a single badly worded sentence, yanked out of context from a 1600 word document, does not a "hypocrite" make. That is the kind of a slight of hand a political pundit might use to further an agenda. If words must be taken out of context or wrongly paraphrased, then so be it. Truth is not important. Only the cause matters, right?. In this case that cause absolute openness in computing.
I still stand by my assertion that what was actually said in Jobs' letter (all 1600 words of it, not just one sentence) does not reflect the sensationalistic, trumped up claims of the open source brigade flying around the web.
There are lots of instances where Jobs has said one thing and done another (tablets, eBooks, video on phones, etc, etc) but this does not look like one of them. In this case all I see is a CEO getting tired of all the moaning and speculation as to why they make the decisions they do and giving a concise explanation of their thought process on the matter. No matter what he said, I'm certain the open source zealots would try to find a way to twist his words to further their agenda. Apple is not for those people anyway. It never has been. Yet they continue to b@tch and b@tch and b@tch. I think this quote from Jobs' recent email exchange with a drunken (and obnoxious) Gawker writer says it best:
"The times they are a changin', and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away. it is."
What I find to be a sleight of hand is when a politician (vs. a pundit) argues that his own words were "misplaced" when he has made a direct statement --more than once-- that he's done something in particular, and he has not. We have a perfect example of that right now in Connecticut. THAT'S "sleight of hand".
Again, I would invite anyone and everyone with an interest in the topic to read John Sullivan's masterful take down of Jobs in his response to Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash". Note that he agrees with Jobs about Adobe's proprietary nature. His issue is with Jobs' claims of Apple's openness, and he makes some very cogent points:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/pot-meet-kettle-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars
I find the all ideological posturing of the "open and free" zealots to be absurd. They are all about the free market and "open" and "choice" until someone in that market chooses a product that is not to their liking. And if any company dares to respond to the needs of this market they scream "fascism!" and start throwing around the authoritarian buzzwords (references to gulags, communist China and North Korea get you extra points). They care about choice .... as long as its their choice. Everyone else be damned. You must suffer for the cause of that which is good open and free. Trust us, we know what's best for you.
It reminds me of militant feminists who demand that freedom for women means that women are no longer free to choose to be homemakers or strippers. If they do make such choices they must be naive or stupid and need our superior judgement to save them from themselves. *Cough*....and I believe we were talking about authoritarianism? Ideology is a very ugly thing indeed (and all the more so when its masquerading as "freedom").
What I suspect really upsets the "open and free" brigade is the fact that a sizable portion of the market doesn't share their values and that Apple is enjoying huge success in serving this market. This success flies in the face of their pet mantra that closed systems always fail. Apple's huge growth is proof that such a belief is simplistic and flawed in a complex and multifaceted marketplace.
Thomas Fitzgerald puts in nicely: "I want choice, But Only If I agree With Your Choice"
http://www.thomas-fitzgerald.net/2010/05/19/i-want-choice-but-only-if-i-agree-with-your-choice/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThomasFitzgeraldnet+%28thomas+fitzgerald.net%29&utm_content=Google+Reader