corporalagumbo

A lot of "tough shit" responses here. I like to sympathise with sensitive people - I think Tolkien was clearly a very sensitive, quiet, private man, and Christopher similarly. I don't think Tolkien ever imagined his work becoming as popular and mass-culture as it did. He took it so seriously I think it would have shocked him. And from the way this article describes it, Tolkien's work formed the bedrock of a very sensitive, private, tender father-son relationship - and that bedrock is now being smeared around every cinema and toystore in the world. Rightly or wrongly, that must hurt a lot for Christopher.

Perhaps nothing should be allowed to remain private. Perhaps privacy is an affront to the rights of the people. But I don't think so. I think everyone has special, private things from their lives - special things they would be upset to see appropriated and distorted at will by other people with little to no understanding or reverence for the meaning those things hold to you. Christopher is only different because the things that made his childhood special and to which he feels protective have become an unstoppable blockbuster film series.

Hell, I can sympathise. Maybe it's just snobbery, but damned if I don't feel disgusted by the shameless, opportunistic faux-Tolkienism whipped up by by New Zealanders in the wake of the films. Nobody in New Zealand gave a shit about Tolkien before the movies. It was only when people realised that it was going to be huge that suddenly everyone became a lifelong Tolkien fan and every farmer next to a film site was running a Hobbit tour... You know, my grandpa read The Hobbit to me when I was young, and he even has a photo from when he met Tolkien (before the books took off.)

Edit: On another note, I think it's a bit rich for Hackernews readers to criticise Christopher for snobbery/possessiveness - after all, the whole bloody point of Hackernews is to discourage average internet users, prevent that 'Eternal September' thing - and maintain a conversation to an elite-defined standard. Everyone has their own snobbish preferences I think.

Hmm.

1) I'm not sure that I agree with you that touch and keyboard/mouse don't mix. Perhaps nobody's come up with a good mix yet. At the very least, what is to stop us from writing software that recognises when input modes change and shifts to suit the new mode? We can write responsive websites that shift to fit different screen sizes.

2) Maybe you can't operate W8 from a keyboard, but you can operate it a hell of a lot better than iOS. At least Microsoft tried to make something that works with both. In Metro you can select tiles with the keyboard arrow keys, search with the Windows key, go to desktop, switch apps, all with keyboard shortcuts.

3) Perhaps the paradigms seem unreal and disparate at the moment, but is that any reason to give up on a future where interfaces are fluid, responsive and seamless across multiple devices and input modes?

4) I agree with you that it is easier to position a pointing device with a trackpad. But that's the whole point of a touchscreen - you don't need to position a pointing device. Rewrite the apps to make them larger and finger-friendly, and forget pointing devices. If you want total accuracy just plug in a mouse. You can do it with the Surface, so what's the problem?

5) I have a Lumia 800 too, and I quite like it. I don't think it's good enough for Microsoft to become a real competitor to Android and iPhone, but I definitely don't think it's crap. Anyway, it doesn't mix interfaces at all - Metro on Windows Phone is touch only. So, why don't you like it?

I think Thurott is asking the wrong questions here. He says that Windows machines are too expensive - that Microsoft needs to retreat from its tactic of seeking a higher ASP. But the elephant is the room is clear - Apple manages to sell truckloads of laptops with a far higher ASP - and with no touchscreens to boot. Why are people willing to splash out for an Apple machine, but not for Windows? I think the answer is clearly prestige. For people like us, when we choose a new computer, we tend to buy sausage over sizzle (which is not to say that the allure of sizzle isn't lost on us.) So we're willing to spend fairly large sums of money on either Apple or Windows machines, whichever lets us do what we want to do best. We're educated, we're willing to research and understand the relative advantages and disadvantages of different OSes, different laptops, custom-built desktops, different components, etc.

Naturally the vast majority of consumers are nothing like us. They know little to nothing about computers, and because there are so many options out there in computers, they feel extremely anxious because they have no idea how to choose one. As a result, they buy sizzle, because sizzle makes them feel less anxious about buying something. Who has the best sizzle? Apple. Are Apple products really the best? Doesn't matter - Apple makes their customers feel safe spending money. If you hear non-tech literate people talking about computers, who are they talking about nine times out of ten? Apple. Or maybe Android. Windows? No. Touchscreen laptops? No. Not even the best new W8 models - eg. the Yoga. They're there in the shops, the ads are on tv, but no normal people are talking about them. They're all busy talking about the iPhone 5, or the iPad.

Microsoft's selling strategy - a rough-around-the-edges OS sold on hundreds of different OEM machines, 95% of which are pretty crappy for all sorts of different reasons - bad build quality, shitty trackpads, rubbish battery life, bloatware, poor customer support - has ruined their reputation among consumers. The stain of generic, confusing, quality-agnostic OEMs has polluted their brand. All the time Microsoft was busy selling whatever crap people would buy, Apple was selling only a handful of carefully-chosen products. Apple sold less in the short term, but their restraint is paying off massively now, because they never polluted their brand. They still have a brand they can sell. Microsoft doesn't, except for Office maybe.

The neat thing about how Apple's strategy works is that their lower-priced products don't compete with the rest of their range. Consumers don't buy iPod Touches instead of iPads, or iPads instead of Macbooks. Kids buy iPod Touches, which is as much as they can afford, and then their iPod Touch makes them aspire to buy an iPad. Then they buy an iPad when they can afford it, and again they aspire to a Macbook. Apple protects its high-end products well. Importantly, at every stage, at every income point, consumers are willing to prioritise buying an Apple product. Even iTunes and the App Store help Apple skim the cream off consumer's disposable income. It's a great system, with desirable, non-competitive products at every price point.

All the while computer stores are filled with masses of generic Windows boxes, competing against and drowning out some of the better, less-generic models - and nobody really cares. Microsoft has rushed right into its next-generation OS, launching it on as many different PC models as possible, trying to accelerate its app ecosystem to life as quickly as possible. I personally think Microsoft should have taken it slower, though maybe things will improve over time - Microsoft has a knack for persistence. I can however see Microsoft trying to do too much too soon, missing the opportunity for a real refresh, perpetuating the same problem of appearing try-hard and incoherent to consumers, tainting it app store with prolonged early irrelevance, failing to create a splash which a next-gen OS could have made, and giving Apple plenty of opportunity to watch and learn.

Thurott's advice is to drive for even-lower prices - polluting an already tainted brand even further. I would argue the opposite is necessary. Microsoft needs to cut the cruft, somehow, take its time, dial back its strident "look how great we are!" marketing, and develop some real, quiet, unforced confidence. If you're quiet and confident, and its clear you respect yourself, you don't need to run around trying to get people's attention. People will pay attention to you, given time. Patience pays off. That's the lesson of Apple I think.

That's why I think Ballmer is not a great CEO. He never quits yelling about how great Windows is, how everything is fine in Microsoft land. There's no humility.

An anecdote: I've been using my iPad everyday since I bought it. Laptops and desktops much less so (though mainly because I don't have a good work set-up atm.) Recently I was on my Macbook and someone called me on Skype. Incredibly, it took me around four seconds of prodding the "answer call" button on screen with my finger before it struck me that I wasn't working with a touchscreen!

Anyway, I'm sure that won't answer all of your objections, and while I agree with you in principle - about screens wobbling for instance - I have to reject your claim that a touchscreen laptop is totally useless. At the very least, with a well-thought out new interface paradigm, you gain small-to-medium boosts in everyday productivity while losing nothing in base functionality. You only add a new interaction option while taking away none of the previous mouse-and-keyboard functionality. That's why nobody is proposing taking away keyboards from touchscreen laptops - because clearly physical keyboards are better than touchscreen keyboards. So your argument about touchscreens being bad for typing are moot, because everybody is going to just use the keyboard in that instance.

I do see a lot of use for touchscreens on laptops in the sort of situation I described earlier - pushing large, clear buttons on screen. This is actually a case where current laptops are miserably unfunctional. Even on a plush, responsive trackpad such as a Macbook's, remotely manipulating a small cursor from one arbitrary spot onscreen to another arbitrary spot and clicking is very inefficient. Being able to simply reach out and tap the screen on the exact spot is much better. This use-case for touchscreen laptops could become even more widespread if popular software begins to follow Microsoft's design cues with large, clear buttons.

1) History contains precisely zero precedents for the transformations in ease and quality of life about to be unleashed by smart learning algorithm-sensor systems.

2) Your historical references are cartoonish.

3) Feudalism in the name of freedom? Seriously?

Wow, talk about a pointless discussion. Metro is clearly not and never has been intended to replace desktop productivity work. Desktop mode isn't gone anywhere. Despite the ridiculous alarmism, Microsoft has shown absolutely zero signs of intending to get rid of or deprecate it. The worst thing you can say about Windows 8 is that Microsoft went a little overboard getting rid of the start menu, and the out-of-the-box workarounds require inelegant Metro-Desktop bridging. Damn, what a catastrophe... I'm sure Microsoft won't think up anything better for Windows 9!

Of course they did.

Also, you don't know jack about the way/s I brighten up my life, bitch.

Yeah, and how did you learn about this god of yours? By reading a material object - a book - written by material beings based on ideas generated in their "brain chemistry," that's how. There's no special metaphysical basis for a knowledge of god, despite your stupid rationalisations.

And we don't "hate God" here - we don't hate any of the imaginary deities invented throughout human history. All of those ideas played an important role in early human culture, even if they are now all firmly past their best by date. Anyway, how can you hate something that doesn't exist? Your claim that we hate your god makes as much sense to us as a Hindu telling you that you hate Ganeesh and Shiva would to you. You would make similar arguments to a Hindu as to why their silly superstition is false, while preserving your own superstition from the same equally-valid critique. We simply observe the most logical and efficient explanation of the many competing ancient superstitions and surmise that they are all equally ungrounded in reality.

We are simply irritated by people who refuse to quit clinging to ancient, irrelevant superstitions, refuse to accept the cutting edge of human knowledge, refuse to accept and take charge of our position in the universe and advance the human story, refuse to accept our true ignorance of the nature of the universe (implicit in claiming that ~3000 year old ideas made up by people orders of magnitude more ignorant than us still have any relevance or signal any absolute truth) - and worst of all refuse to keep their irrelevant ignorance in their pants and instead run around trying to criticise intelligent, enlightened, superstition-free people.

Yes, nothing like a good old-fashioned delusion to brighten up your life.

Sorry, I can see how reading my comment would give the impression that I speak from great authority, but I was mostly just voicing my own preferences and prejudices about learning. I took a look at the introductory video for your service and it seems like a very professional, carefully-structured course - I do think learning in groups can work well if there is a clear, thoughfully-conceived structure for interaction. And it must surely help that you select for motivated, intelligent people - motivation is the key to real learning at any stage in life, I'd say.

I have had some experience with attempts to get groups of people to create or work together in groups with little to no structure and it never works. But I have not had much experience with the sort of structured social learning you offer (I think architect schools do a lot of this sort of structured, group creation-cum-learning - might be worth checking out.)

I do think that locking yourself in a room with a book and focussing is important, at least to build the platform of understanding from which you can move to group interactions. That's certainly my preference for the things I teach myself, and I think it is crucial for building basic understanding and confidence with the ideas. Of course there are chokepoints, especially with something like coding where at some point you need to actually start creating, where measured, structured guidance must be immensely helpful. But I think you need a rhythm - independent learning, then taking the problems and confusions you've built up into a social setting, then independent work again - I think real, 100% focus on a problem is a solitary activity. But perhaps from your own experience with DBC you can offer me some counter-examples?

I'm sorry, I didn't notice the part of your comment where you mentioned being a high schooler too - didn't mean to deny your contrasting experience. As the other commenter suggested, why don't you share your own take?

People were plenty stupid before the Internet. It was just hidden before, now it's all out in the open.

Let's just see what happens next - remember, we're only about three to four years into a fully online society :)

That sounds like a very narrow-minded interpretation to me.

No. Based on everything I have seen or heard of him in the media, including videos of him in speaking or interacing in social situations. He seems extremely awkward and completely bereft of charisma. The polar opposite of Jobs.

The capitalist system is continually evolving and eliminating inefficiencies which allow people to profit from harming others. The trend has been strongly towards better controls to prevent businesses from externalising costs to the detriment of society, these controls have in turned spurred innovation which has resulted in cleaner, better, more productive technology benefitting everyone. Just like going around beating people up and stealing their wallets is no longer a viable road to financial success, businesses can no longer expect to profit from dumping harmful chemicals into waterways. The range of options for profit are continually being tightened and focussed exclusively in the realm of mutual benefit.

We are, hopefully, on the verge of sensible legislation to prevent businesses and individuals externalising the costs of greenhouse gases too, and so spur healthy innovation in that most important area, and in so doing securing the future habitability of the planet - hopefully once we do so your objections to capitalism will begin to fade.

Yeah. Computing has trickled down from the intellectual elite to the masses. I suspect more curious, analytical and information-seeking attitudes will trickle down in time too.

My gut reaction is "not going to happen." Because I think people are drawn to companies with honest, relaxed attitudes - not companies carefully calculating their identity to win a new market share and desperately attempting to avoid obsolescence. And I think this consumer preference is becoming even more influential as the main arena of corporate competition becomes increasingly digital and social. Look at how successful Microsoft has been so far at proving that it's still cool.

But then, maybe you're right - maybe we should look forward to some incredibly sophisticated, calculating companies in the future.

My impression is the exact opposite: I see people reading and debating more than ever thanks to the internet. I think thanks to the internet we are in a golden era of literacy, but we just don't notice it because we're too busy complaining with other highly-literate people on highly debate-focussed websites such at this one about the more obvious non-literary manifestations of popular culture.

I think he's right to question the viability of the brand. Facebook has accumulated a pretty incredible amount of unflattering connotations over time, and is now probably one of the least cool tech companies around, at least in the eyes of normal people. Personally I find it telling that the people I respect the most are those that publicly post on Facebook the least (naturally I use it post publicly never :) )

The danger here is that once a company gets uncool, they often get desperate to try and prove that they're cool again. For an example of how well that tends to work out, see Microsoft's increasingly-shrill efforts to prove that they're still hip. The problem as far as I see it stems from the fact that the best companies project an image of selflessness - they're not actually trying to make money, they're just people who have a really, really amazing product, that they love so much, and are so happy introducing to the world. Once a company gets uncool and desperate, and starts casting around trying to reinvent themselves, they are basically openly admitting that their only purpose is to make money and their only desire is to beat their competition. This is Microsoft's position right now, and it's not tenable in the long-term in my opinion. People just don't like desperation and the dishonest posturing it breeds. Facebook could walk right into that same trap (not helped by the fact that Mark Zuckerberg is so uncool.)

I feel like Facebook has become the boring Uncle of our digital lives. Nobody really likes it, except for those blissfully ignorant people who haven't realised how dumb they look posting all the time, but we can't get rid of it. I agree that texting is usually faster than Facebook messaging (though because I use WP7 the line is pretty well blurred between the two for me) but you tend to be Facebook friends with more people than you have phone numbers for and/or text regularly. Maybe this is a little different for you because you are still in school, but as a young adult Facebook is the quick, reliable place where everyone I know is stored.

I read a description of the computer desktop as the place which you can always find on your computer, and so the place where unconfident computer users end up storing all of their files. I think Facebook is the equivalent of the desktop for social contacts on the web. Which I think will give it a lot of resilience to unpopularity, so even if no one loves it, it'll probably stick around.

Just like I get an intuitive sense that this article is on-the-money, I get an intuitive sense that your comment is wrong. Intelligent, investigatory conversations with individual subjects can be extremely insightful, and speak to much larger trends.

Plus, I think you're discounting the power and spread of trends in youth culture. School is the pre-eminent breeding ground for fads.

Wow. You must be lost - Hackernews is, as far as I am aware, a site for intelligent, open-minded people who recognise that valuable information may be found in many inconspicuous, non-intuitive locations. People intelligent enough to realise that kids are historically early-adopters and re-shapers of technology, pioneering uses and social integrations which, while dismissed as trivial by ignorant, hidebound adults, often end up exploding into mainstream popularity and defining the future of technology.

Yeah, but... If you are the one teenager who decides it is too risky to jump off the cliff into the river... Enjoy sitting on your own while everyone else has fun - enjoy never getting invited to the river again - enjoy sitting at home playing videogames as the braver boys wander off with into the grass with all the cute girls.

Teenage impulsivity and risk-tasking are reproductively optimal strategies (the actual rates of death and disability from these activities are usually low anyway) even if you like to look down your nose at them. And people who engage in those activities often end up doing just fine in later life, as well-adjusted, popular, confident adults, with a history of sexual success.

Maybe they're not optimal strategies for being a high-performing time-efficient adult, but so what? Natural selection only cares about babes and babies.

Language acquisition is not a good example to use here. Our minds are primed with pre-built language circuitry and as children we pick up the specifics of our environmental language effortlessly.

The learning we do throughout our post-infancy lives bears no resemblance to language learning. It is done using that effortlessly-acquired language structure, but in itself it takes hard work and effort. Unlike language, it goes "against the grain" of our evolved instincts. It can indeed be catalysed through judicious social interaction - comparing results, swapping tips, etc. - but the core of adult learning is focused, isolated study. Social environments for learning are a supplement, useful in moderation, but usually destructive and much more likely to result in groupthink, lowest-common-denominator mediocrity, and poor efficiencies in failing to optimise for the wide range of needs and aptitudes distributed among individuals when used in excess.

Drones are going to change everything.

"Inhuman" connotes differently from what I was trying to express.

As for the other two, perhaps I should specify: I believe that this is true specifically for people who openly proclaim childlessness as their free choice, who defend it as a superior option, and who counter-attack and try to de-normalise having kids. People in other words who flaunt childlessness and try to pretend that having kids is not really an important issue. All of the people I have met who act in this manner have been strange, warped people. One lady told me she couldn't stand the idea of an "alien parasite growing inside of her." Others I have met scream about the horrors of childbirth, or the disgusting, pathetic and needy nature of babies. None of them seemed to have enough love in their hearts to care selflessly and unquestioningly for another human being, and all seemed to be gripped by pretty nasty self-loathing fears of their own humanity/mortality.

On the other hand, I am sure there are many people who for whatever reason miss on out on having kids or choose not to for decent reasons, but maintain good perspective about their decision/fate, and feel a measure of quiet regret and curiosity about the road not taken, which helps keeps them soft and human.

I think when you have kids, you accept that you are no longer fully in control of your life; you are forced to let go and accept your humanity. This is quite a healthy thing to do, among other things that sense of control was mostly illusory anyway. People who don't do this and keep trying to swim against the current of life end up pretty strange and warped I think.

Really? I didn't find that article impressive at all. I thought it was sloppily written, short on in-depth analysis, and really didn't have much of a point beyond "my old job sucked." Note how many times he says "was that too many puns? Oh well." Maybe you'd call that the modern style, but for me all that says is he didn't bother to revise and redraft enough. It shows I think too that he hasn't really thought hard about what he's written because he doesn't have many points to make. If you redraft enough you end up developing your ideas and either realising you had something important to say or didn't. This guy didn't bother.

So he complains about thoughtless, rushed modern culture, but his writing is a case in point. I don't respect that.

Thanks :) Care to provide any details on how exactly?