Cute, but a total fantasy. I don't represent or misrepresent your view. If you feel that your point is not getting through, it's for one of the following reasons: you're not clear enough or your point is not clear enough.
As for straw men, I don't use them in making my point. No need, they're cheap shots.
You seem to be genuinely unaware of your misrepresentation, so perhaps I'll try to be clearer to see how you respond. I'll give this another go.
When we began this dialogue, I asked you to give me an explanation regarding what you thought was dumb about the way Apple is, or has recently, been developing OS X. You mentioned a list, and I selected responded to some. Here I'll address the first four as a test run to see how discussion with you goes.
You said Apple added the following features that made OS X dumber:
(1) Launchpad: I told you that launchpad was entirely optional, so nothing about the overall experience had to be dumber. You could keep everything as you wanted it, or you could use the new added feature if you liked. Your response was whether or not Launchpad was optional, was irrelevant because launchpad itself was dumb. Well, there isn't much of an explanation there on your part. But regardless of whether or not we agree that Launchpad is dumb, the OS is not dumber as a result since you can keep all the "intelligence" it used to have.
That being said, launchpad is a good, intelligent feature, for those interested in using it. Here's why. First, forget about where it got its inspiration, just consider it on its own terms. Before launchpad, if you wanted to launch a rarely used app, you had a few options. (a) you could go look for it in Finder. (b) type its name in spotlight, and then launch it, (c) have it on your dock, or (d) have an Application icon on your dock which opened up a list of Apps, from which you can select to launch your rarely used app.
Well, doing (a) is process that takes multiple steps and it is inefficient. (b) is also cumbersome and time consuming. (c) and (d) congest the dock for not good reason. Well, with the new Launchpad, I can activate it through a hotkey, or through a hot corner, so for the most part it is invisible to my usual computing experience. Then when I need to access a rarely used app, I can quickly load it up. I can also quickly delete no longer needed Apps from Launchpad. So, regardless of its interface, it is a wonderful shortcut for my usage. It might not be needed for you, but this extra facility for many others is useful. So what that it got its interface from iOS. I couldn't care less. I evaluate it on its own merits.
(2) Scrollbars: This point was sufficiently addressed initially. I said it was ugly and unnecessary. You replied by claiming it is objectively convenient and informative. Well, by definition, something objective is something that can be proven. So prove to me what convenience it adds, and what information it adds, that I can't obtain otherwise, or through simply moving my screen ever so slightly to activate the invisible scrollbars? Using loaded language like "objective" is not a very convincing way to argue a point unless you back your usage up with reasons.
(3) Magic trackpad: Multiple finger swipes, regardless of iOS is incredibly useful for many of us. It optimizes our workflow. Explain why it is dumb. The onus is on you here. And your joystick comment is ridiculous, please come up with a better analogy.
(4) Reversing scrolling: Alright, so let's begin this way. When you code your interface, it seems you have multiple options about how to make your screen scroll. Suppose you want to make your window move down. Here are two options you can do:
(a) make it so that the gestures you use on your track pad represent the action that you want to happen on the screen. So, for example, you move down on the trackpad, and the screen moves down.
or (b) make it so that the gestures you use on your track pad undertake the action that you want to happen to the screen. So for example, if I want to see what is underneath what is currently written within the window, I move that portion of the window up, to see what lies below.
Now, it is possible that one of these is more intuitive than the other on the desktop platform. But regardless of that initial possibility, one thing is blatantly clear. One way or another, you brain will quickly adapt to whatever option is selected, and the process of having the screen scroll will no longer be one you think about, it'll become second nature. There is a very fast habituation that occurs.
Alright, now enter iOS. On iOS, given the touchscreen interface, (b) is more intuitive than (a). Also, the habituation on that interface is not nearly as fast as it is on the desktop environment since your hand gestures are immediately in contact with the screen and do not become invisible or second nature to the computing environment. So, if, as it happened historically, you started the desktop with (a), and your mobile devices with (b), you now have two very different approaches to dealing with a simple process, namely, scrolling.
You can either leave it that way, confusing new and future users, or you can make the process consistent without great loss. The desktop users will need adapt should you implement (b), but that is a loss worth bearing since the habituation curve is so fast. But, that being said, for people who are accustomed to their ways can keep the desktop environment as it was, by keeping (a) in their system preferences.
Nothing about this is dumb. Is is carefully thought out. Nothing about this has anything to do with the "power" or "mobility" of the devices. The desktop could have been programmed to do (a) or (b) at the very start. Changing from one to the other can be done at anytime without causing much inconvenience to the user, especially considering that the user is not obliged to make the transition. Again, what Apple did was it added options for people who prefer consistency between their devices. You see, the beauty about computers is whatever they were initially designed for, whatever their mobility or power limitations, we can redesign them and change their utilities anytime we so desire. There is no "inherent" nature to these objects, and similarly, no inherent inconsistency between the functions we put them towards. The intended designs are malleable.
When you talk about "The two products, Macs and iToys are by their very nature "inconsistent"" you are talking utter nonsense friend. Computer's aren't Platonic forms. When you say stuff like,
"You make the logical fallacy of Since A is made by C and B is made by C, thus A and B must be made the same." you completely miss the point. It isn't because Macs and iDevices are made by Apple that they are the same, or ought to be the same, it is rather that we can ameliorate the functioning of both devices by changing their designs and functions, should we so choose, and should people desire it. If those, like you, don't like the redesigned functions, don't use them. But to think people, or Apple, are dumb because they choose to ameliorate the experience of the vast majority of their consumers is sheer nonsense. The world of computers is not made for you.
