Now @vga256 ran away immediately after insulting my writing, suggesting they've got a certain lack of faith in their own ability to write persuasive words, but I feel as if this does NOT actually address the serious point which I was attempting to make to vga256 and @cstross, a point that I reiterate here: is it not BAD for everyone, especially the #technology sector, to regard #SteveJobs as anything but a villain?

Why is there any good reason to praise Steve Jobs? Why should such a creature be remembered fondly AT ALL? There's plenty of reasons to remember him as a scumbag (qq.v. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEv08Zzunfc and following.)

I think it would be far more just to regard Steve Jobs as I regard him, i.e. as a confidence trickster. He built a wholly undeserved reputation as an inventor when, in fact, he was merely the person in charge of packaging and selling the technological achievements of others—people whose work Steve Jobs pretended was his own achievement. Jobs deliberately marketed himself as if he were the sole Great Man™ responsible for everything good that came out of #Apple.

(cont'd)

Part One: The Terrible Secret of Steve Jobs | BEHIND THE BASTARDS

YouTube

And thus, as I said earlier, Jobs inspired legions of imitators, all of whom have been far more obviously villainous than was #SteveJobs, who was at least taking credit for some genuine achievements and innovations out of #Apple—though I would argue that Jobs's Second Coming in the 1990s brought an end to true innovation from Apple. Since then Apple's method has been generally about squeezing as much as possible from the boutique nature of their "walled garden" branding. Apple did not invent the MP3 player or the smart phone, but with deft packaging and marketing Apple was able to get itself written up in the press as if they were somehow the chief inventors and innovators of these things, just as Jobs got himself written up as though he were the chief inventor of all things Apple.

Thanks to Jobs's model we now have ten thousand #tech execs, other scammers who dress themselves up in artfully chosen "business casual" styles and who have been accorded a ridiculous degree of latitude and gentle treatment at the hands of technology journalists who report upon the doings and sayings of (say) Sam Altman or Marc Andreessen the same way they reported upon Steve Jobs, i.e. uncritically, sycophantically, Walter-Isaacson-style, faithfully copying the tech execs' own marketing postures into their stories.

(cont'd)

@mxchara @applefeed The first iPhone was revolutionary in that it was all screen. iMac introduced USB when few computers had it which led to widespread adoption, and a one piece unit that was colorful. The iMac G4 used an innovative monitor swing arm. Within the past 10years Apple made their own chips optimized for macOS. They might arrive late, but they usually shift the whole computer designs. So don’t tell me #apple doesn’t innovate.
@noivad @applefeed ah, so the iPhone introduced a BAD element of UX, i.e. all screen no buttons
@mxchara @applefeed The all screen introduced a flexible UX with no keyboard like Blackberry taking up a third of the surface area allowing it to be a better browser experience since it had extra real estate. Also, if the UX was so inferior then why did every manufacturer start copying it? Because it was superior to 1/3 less of a screen
@noivad @applefeed yes, exactly. Apple led the way in making phones more difficult to use
@noivad @applefeed as to why is was copied that's easily explained: less functional = cheaper to mass produce
@mxchara @applefeed How exactly is it less functional? The cost savings was a big plus,I think the change added functionality. YMMV. So we can agree to disagree. ✌️ peace
@noivad @applefeed You said it yourself! The featureless-rectangle method of phone design reduces all UX to a single input method. It's objectively less functional.
@noivad @applefeed And I do not agree to disagree. You're simply wrong.
@mxchara @applefeed Let’s not get personal. From my point of view it looks you are wrong. Question: aren’t there still manufacturers the make keyboard phones? If so, you’re in luck, and can exercise your right to choose, and there’s less of an argument — don’t want a all screen you get your way with the former mobile phone design.

@noivad I think you're setting up a false dichotomy between "keyboard phone" (which is only one particular way to make a phone with more user-interface controls) and the featureless rectangle. also, how much free choice is there really in a smartphone landscape in which getting a service plan usually means being tied down to a limited range of choices of hardware?

my point is, the true reason for the ubiquity of the all-screen no-buttons design is profiteering. cheaper per unit means more profit per unit. the needs and user-experience of the average person don't feature in this corporate calculus at all. the user is out of the loop