SJ and Ryan Tate go at it via email at 2AM!

[jmull]

Entertaining Indeed

It's almost like watching popcorn pop itself. Everyone thinks this is real. There is no way that is SJ. He says if I had kids I would care about porn on my computing devices. So he is saying that the only way to stop porn is from the computer factory. I think that's a fair thing to infer but not the way an adult would think. If computers are that dangerous no one with kids should own a PC because they haven't been Apple Anti-Porn Approved? These emails are kids getting their kicks and I think it's pretty funny. I can't wait till the next chapter of emails is released.

 

[daxomni]

Not entirely. A strawman is more than simply "changing the conversation." It's inventing a bogus position for your opponent to more easily attack it. There have been plenty in this thread indeed. Example: Commenter A: "I agree with Steve Jobs: Apple should not sell pornography." Commenter B: "I can't believe you're going to continue to blindly worship Steve Jobs like that." (strawman) or "Why don't you value freedom?" (strawman)

Are you really so partisan as to not see the straw man aspect of your very own post?

 

[awmazz]

Are you really so partisan as to not see the straw man aspect of your very own post?

Add this as example #3 from Commenter B.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Um, not quite...

could you please cite your definition? Wikipedia and all online sources I can find say my definition is correct.

I think you're wrong, bro.

 

[VSEAE15O]

Ryan, use spell check buddy.

Remember, Steve was more hip than you ever were when he was your age so take his advice and chill out. Don't go pitching your bitchiness at him just listen to what he says and take it objectively.

I will have to agree with him that if you don't like the product, then go dev somewhere else and move on. Your blog work would seem more productive that way than criticizing Apple's sound judgement on Adobe's lack of competence.

And you're talking down the very company that has revolutionized computing more times than Microsoft? Come on son...

 

[bobob]

Quite the opposite. Apple did exactly as you prescribe, listening in the early '90s almost led to its unravelling and complete demise. Licensing Mac OS for example. Tear down this walled garden, Mr Gorbapple. After that almighty fubar, they called the preacher in. And haven't listened since.

I find it amazing how much advice and criticism people can have for a successful company with successful products in relation to how they should fix their 'problems' with their successful company and their successful products. It's ironic that it's mostly exactly the same advice and criticism as when Apple was struggling, which in essence amounts to "to be better than everyone else, Apple needs to do what everyone else is doing". I'm very happy as a long time Apple consumer that Steve Jobs does NOT listen to that sort of advice and criticism. I'm not a shareholder, but I assume those whoa are would be even happier still that he doesn't listen.

Excellent post.

I nominate it for the MacRumors Forums Hall of Fame!

 

[Atkins]

It's almost like watching popcorn pop itself. Everyone thinks this is real. There is no way that is SJ.

we get it, you assume this is not Jobs. Fair enough. We assume this is him. And we have fun discussing it.

 

[Atkins]

Excellent post.
I nominate it for the MacRumors Forums Hall of Fame!

+1 for the Hall of fame. His post is so simple yet so to the point.

 

[mccldwll]

+1 for the Hall of fame. His post is so simple yet so to the point.

Aren't those the very attributes which would prevent its admittance into the Macrumors' Hall of Fame? In it's place, I'd second cmaier's recognition of Augure's post that "people are stupidly applausing Steve Jobs for having poor rethoric." That's a classic.

 

[JediZenMaster]

Here is a simple solution. Design your own phone and OS platform,Then you can decide what restrictions you want and don't wan't because you have the freedom to do so.

But untill then don't tell someone else how to make their product because the same way some of you want the "Freedom" to have porn on your iDevice. SJ and co have the freedom to design a product the way they want.

Get it? Got it? Good!

 

[Atkins]

Aren't those the very attributes which would prevent its admittance into the Macrumors' Hall of Fame? In it's place, I'd second cmaier's recognition of Augure's post that "people are stupidly applausing Steve Jobs for having poor rethoric." That's a classic.

LOL. Isn't that another hall of fame?

 

[mccldwll]

Here is a simple solution. Design your own phone and OS platform,Then you can decide what restrictions you want and don't wan't because you have the freedom to do so.

But untill then don't tell someone else how to make their product because the same way some of you want the "Freedom" to have porn on your iDevice. SJ and co have the freedom to design a product the way they want.

Get it? Got it? Good!

Yep. While generally I reject black and white Randian cartoonish simplicity, in this case I side with Roark.

 

[r0k]

In reading his exchange with Ryan Tate, it is clear SJ is all about preaching and not about listening. Failure to listen is the first step in the great unraveling of any company and hopefully SJ can find enough humility to listen before Android or webOS or Linux or even glacially slow Microsoft comes along and serves him up a whole bakery full of humble pie.

Quite the opposite. Apple did exactly as you prescribe, listening in the early '90s almost led to its unravelling and complete demise. Licensing Mac OS for example. Tear down this walled garden, Mr Gorbapple. After that almighty fubar, they called the preacher in. And haven't listened since.

I find it amazing how much advice and criticism people can have for a successful company with successful products in relation to how they should fix their 'problems' with their successful company and their successful products. It's ironic that it's mostly exactly the same advice and criticism as when Apple was struggling, which in essence amounts to "to be better than everyone else, Apple needs to do what everyone else is doing". I'm very happy as a long time Apple consumer that Steve Jobs does NOT listen to that sort of advice and criticism. I'm not a shareholder, but I assume those whoa are would be even happier still that he doesn't listen.

I must agree that listening to just any old crackpot is another recipe for disaster. When I saw Apple go after that Psystar outfit, I was happy they were protecting themselves, despite a number of people clamoring for cheaper or even clone Macs. But it's human nature to attribute success to "something I did" versus "market conditions" or "serendipity" and the only way to smell trouble up ahead is to keep your eyes and ears open.

What I wish SJ did was respectfully disagree and give substantive reasons why he couldn't do what Ryan suggested rather than simply sound dictatorial. I don't get the feeling Apple can have the kind of agility it needs while at the same time appearing to be insular.

I agree with SJ's stance on Flash. It's friggin' useless (most of the time). I had flashblock on almost all of my machines until it got to the point I could ran into daily issues with things I could not get done without having flash enabled. Even now I have adblock to mitigate the most offensive occurances of flash. But Google is throwing its weight behind Adobe by including flash in the next Android release. This is a big deal especially when you consider that for this quarter at least, Android Phones are outselling iPhones. Hulu bailed on HTML5 as well. When I try to enable YouTube's HTML5 beta in firefox, I find it can only be enabled in IE or in Chrome?!? This is not as clear cut as SJ would like us to believe, or more alarmingly, SJ believes it's this clear cut.

If like the Who's "Tommy," SJ keeps his blindfold on and earplugs in, he might miss a developing trend that can hurt or even ruin sales. After all, it is fair to say Apple refused to expose the api's flash needed to run (slightly more) efficiently. Now that Adobe is able to make low level chipset accelerated graphics calls, will flash get any better? I think so but I wonder if Apple will find the time to even bother taking a look.

Adobe Acrobat and Flash are tragedies, but as a long time Photoshop CS and Dreamweaver MX user, I would be more inclined to throw software quality accusations at a certain company up in Redmond, Wa than at Adobe. In fact, I would say iTunes is fraught with the same kind of bloat I normally expect from MS Office or Adobe Acrobat. While I don't like having flash in my way, I don't like having Apple tell me I can't try it and make the decision it sucks for myself. I'm not wishing for a wide open system here or I'd go for Windows or Linux, but iThings are a bit too closed and SJ's attitude seems a bit too insular for me.

I'm not suggesting SJ let noobs run his company from outside, but an arrogant and insular culture is counter to any company, even Apple's continued success.

 

[None Such]

Ryan Tate reminds me of some of the posters on this site.

 

[Atkins]

What I wish SJ did was respectfully disagree and give substantive reasons why he couldn't do what Ryan suggested rather than simply sound dictatorial. I don't get the feeling Apple can have the kind of agility it needs while at the same time appearing to be insular.

I see it differently. While he does represent Apple, he is also a human. This wasn't an interview, it wasn't even a discussion - and that thanks to Ryan. IMHO it was a provocation. And I think Jobs expressed more of a personal opinion here, rather than precise company strategies. That is why we have "official" statements. I think you are asking too much of him here.

 

[mccldwll]

I see it differently. While he does represent Apple, he is also a human. This wasn't an interview, it wasn't even a discussion - and that thanks to Ryan. IMHO it was a provocation. And I think Jobs expressed more of a personal opinion here, rather than precise company strategies. That is why we have "official" statements. I think you are asking too much of him here.

And there's absolutely no certainty it's Jobs answering. Corporate leadership is about delegation. The email address is well known. There is absolutely no way that everything goes directly to him without screeners, and no certainty that anything gets to him. My bet is that a drunken rant from a blogger wouldn't even make it past the first filter.

 

[LagunaSol]

Are you really so partisan as to not see the straw man aspect of your very own post?

I would love for you to elaborate.

could you please cite your definition? Wikipedia and all online sources I can find say my definition is correct.

I think you're wrong, bro.

If you'd read my subsequent post, you'd see the important part of the definition you left out (i.e. not merely changing the subject, but inventing a bogus position for your debate opponent).

 

[Stately]

Steve should start doing what I have learned to do around here, ignore the immature, uneducated Apple haters that just like to argue for the sake of feeling alive. If you know that what you know is fact and it benefits others, that's all that matters. Steve, I hope you didn't let that clown get to you. You know your the innovator of all innovators.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

If you'd read my subsequent post, you'd see the important part of the definition you left out (i.e. not merely changing the subject, but inventing a bogus position for your debate opponent).

I did indeed read that post, however that definition is nowhere to be found on any site I checked. It looks like you are actually the one who doesn't know what a strawman argument is.

 

[LagunaSol]

I did indeed read that post, however that definition is nowhere to be found on any site I checked. It looks like you are actually the one who doesn't know what a strawman argument is.

And it looks like you may be struggling with reading comprehension, as the very definition I am referring to (directly from Wikipedia) was quoted here:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

From wikipedia

Again, a strawman is not a "change of conversation." It's inventing a faux position ("strawman") for your opponent and then attacking it. Changing the subject is indeed a lame debating strategy, but it is not necessarily a strawman.

I don't understand why you have such a problem with Wikipedia and consider its definitions illegitimate. (strawman)

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

And it looks like you may be struggling with reading comprehension, as the very definition I am referring to (directly from Wikipedia) was quoted here:

Please don't belittle me. It makes you look silly when I prove you wrong, especially since it seems you have the comprehension issues. It clearly states that you create a superficially similar position (strawman) and refute it, which is exactly what I said before and other posters have agreed that that's what I said and meant.

Again, a strawman is not a "change of conversation." It's inventing a faux position ("strawman") for your opponent and then attacking it. Changing the subject is indeed a lame debating strategy, but it is not necessarily a strawman.

That's exactly what I said, but you replaced "change of conversation" with "faux position" which in context mean the same thing.

I don't understand why you have such a problem with Wikipedia and consider its definitions illegitimate. (strawman)

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern

A strawman argument is when you change the conversation to something more easily refutable in order to make it seem as if you have refuted the original argument. In this case we're talking about Apple opening up the App Store to things it has previously rejected or allowing for sideloading apps, but awmazz changed the argument to Apple allowing pornography in the App Store.

How is this not a definition of a strawman fallacy? How is my example not an example of a strawman? Replace "change the conversation" to "inventing a faux position" and you have the same exact definition you gave.

 

[LagunaSol]

That's exactly what I said, but you replaced "change of conversation" with "faux position" which in context mean the same thing.

No, they are absolutely not the same thing.

Changing the subject of the argument is not the same as creating a bogus position (strawman) for your debate opponent. It just isn't, and that's where your original definition fell flat. Sorry you can't see the difference.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No, they are absolutely not the same thing.

Changing the subject of the argument is not the same as creating a bogus position (strawman) for your debate opponent. It just isn't, and that's where your original definition fell flat. Sorry you can't see the difference.

I am correct and do not need you to validate my definition. For some reason you choose to be unreasonable. How can you create a faux position without changing the subject of the argument? Please, I would love an example.

Please, tell me the difference between creating a faux position and changing the subject. And make sure that the difference fits in with my original definition, where changing the subject makes it so you refute a claim that wasn't originally claimed. You'll find that it's either extremely awkward or impossible, meaning that my original definition is entirely valid.

 

[cmaier]

I am correct and do not need you to validate my definition. For some reason you choose to be unreasonable. How can you create a faux position without changing the subject of the argument? Please, I would love an example.

Please, tell me the difference between creating a faux position and changing the subject. And make sure that the difference fits in with my original definition, where changing the subject makes it so you refute a claim that wasn't originally claimed. You'll find that it's either extremely awkward or impossible, meaning that my original definition is entirely valid.

I think puppies are great.

Changing the subject: You're ugly.
Strawman: You have no right to force puppies on me. I'm allergic.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I think puppies are great.

Changing the subject: You're ugly.
Strawman: You have no right to force puppies on me. I'm allergic.

But that doesn't fit with my original definition, there is context that needs to carry over. Sure that's a change of subject, but not a change of subject that helps refute a claim. Although my definition never used "faux" (a word that should never be used in an English formal definition) it did specify a certain kind of subject change specific enough to fit the definition of strawman.