5 ms·

Any time I hear the term "Apple hater" with no justification or reasoning, I can't help but think that person is of the lowest intelligence. (Or Android hater,

by thefrog 11y ago

Any time I hear the term "Apple hater" with no justification or reasoning, I can't help but think that person is of the lowest intelligence. (Or Android hater, or any other tech "hater" for that matter. Why can't we accept that companies do different things without proclaiming ourselves as "haters"?)

baldfat 11y ago
I'm the hater: I thought they were givens when dealing with "Apple Haters" I can go off the top of my head! Original Mac replaced the over $10,000 Lisa for a quarter of the price then left the color option off the market for over a year. (My dad was buying the first Mac when the color one comes out ended up with an Amiga). Amgia: Apple lied about the capabilities of the Amiga. My Amiga 1000 at 7.16 MHz could run an emulator of the MacOS at 7.8336 MHz BOTH on the same 68000 CPU and the Amiga out preformed it in benchmarks. The Mac took many years to catch up to the Amiga. Amiga had analogue colors and Mac had a extremely limited range of colors that were digital. You ever have to service the old Apple Printers? WOW they were HORRIBLE! Even worse did you ever have to work with Token Rings?!?!?! I will never be able to read Lord of the Rings without going into a rage about the 1990s networking with these beauts! The "Pro-Tools" era of Digital audio. Even after the need for proprietary hardware for I/O was over (1998 or so) they continued to sell many many thousands of dollars inputs based on false information provided by Apple. Lies: No malware or virus. No crashes. - No OS is safe (They even use to suggest that people have an anti-virus program running on OS X on their website) Still today OS X and Apple software crashes all the time on me. Just Sunday a mission critical part of the presentation refused to work till after a hard reboot and re-install of the software. Litigation as a tool to stop competition. Present Day: Price Fixing which breaks down the rights of the buyer to have the power and knowledge in purchasing (This is why it is illegag. Walled garden - I'm an old school Hacker who prefer Linux and open hardware. Macs life span is so short presently. Apple doesn't even tell you what the life span of their OS releases will be (Unless that changed recently) 30% commission on apps, books and well everyone's work. This causes Apple (Google also guilty of this) to make more off of people's work then the creators do. This is part of the reason why we had the EBook price fixing issue. OS X and Apple Software UI is very limiting and causes me to go mad trying to remember what the "Apple Way" is. My biggest pet peeve is Final Cut does not have a Render for the longest time. I had to always go search for the way to just pre-render and final render video projects to export. This made me look silly BUT Final Cut added render as an actual term a few years ago. Render was the technical word for all video editing EXCEPT Final Cut! I could go on for much more and I am sure you disagree with all of it, but to say someone disagrees with something you prefer as being unintelligent just means you have your own bias that allow you to believe you are smarter due to your preferences.
goldbrick 11y ago
So you're saying you're a hater hater? Nice passive aggressive slam btw.
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance. [1] “The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” ― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [2] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-...
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    How does Popper address the staggering power imbalance required to use force to suppress intolerance? Can genuine tolerance ever exist in a society where the strong dictate what is politically correct? "Tolerance," to me, has a simple definition: whoever uses force first is the one who's intolerant. I'd be curious to know how Popper avoided the same conclusion.
EdwardDiego 11y ago
> I can't help but think that person is of the lowest intelligence. Oh no! Someone has an opinion you disagree with! Clearly, they're stupid.
esailija 11y ago
Apple hates developers so many developers hate apple, that enough reasoning for you?
- zepto 11y ago
  No
- zepto 11y ago
  Apple doesn't hate developers.
  - esailija 11y ago
    They want developers to go against their best interests and only develop apps for a very small portion of users. They don't want to compete fairly with developers, making some capabilities inaccessible to developers while keeping them accessible to themselves. If you as a developer are ok with this, it must be some kind of stockholm syndrome.

by thefrog 11y ago

baldfat 11y ago

I'm the hater: I thought they were givens when dealing with "Apple Haters" I can go off the top of my head! Original Mac replaced the over $10,000 Lisa for a quarter of the price then left the color option off the market for over a year. (My dad was buying the first Mac when the color one comes out ended up with an Amiga). Amgia: Apple lied about the capabilities of the Amiga. My Amiga 1000 at 7.16 MHz could run an emulator of the MacOS at 7.8336 MHz BOTH on the same 68000 CPU and the Amiga out preformed it in benchmarks. The Mac took many years to catch up to the Amiga. Amiga had analogue colors and Mac had a extremely limited range of colors that were digital. You ever have to service the old Apple Printers? WOW they were HORRIBLE! Even worse did you ever have to work with Token Rings?!?!?! I will never be able to read Lord of the Rings without going into a rage about the 1990s networking with these beauts! The "Pro-Tools" era of Digital audio. Even after the need for proprietary hardware for I/O was over (1998 or so) they continued to sell many many thousands of dollars inputs based on false information provided by Apple. Lies: No malware or virus. No crashes. - No OS is safe (They even use to suggest that people have an anti-virus program running on OS X on their website) Still today OS X and Apple software crashes all the time on me. Just Sunday a mission critical part of the presentation refused to work till after a hard reboot and re-install of the software. Litigation as a tool to stop competition. Present Day: Price Fixing which breaks down the rights of the buyer to have the power and knowledge in purchasing (This is why it is illegag. Walled garden - I'm an old school Hacker who prefer Linux and open hardware. Macs life span is so short presently. Apple doesn't even tell you what the life span of their OS releases will be (Unless that changed recently) 30% commission on apps, books and well everyone's work. This causes Apple (Google also guilty of this) to make more off of people's work then the creators do. This is part of the reason why we had the EBook price fixing issue. OS X and Apple Software UI is very limiting and causes me to go mad trying to remember what the "Apple Way" is. My biggest pet peeve is Final Cut does not have a Render for the longest time. I had to always go search for the way to just pre-render and final render video projects to export. This made me look silly BUT Final Cut added render as an actual term a few years ago. Render was the technical word for all video editing EXCEPT Final Cut! I could go on for much more and I am sure you disagree with all of it, but to say someone disagrees with something you prefer as being unintelligent just means you have your own bias that allow you to believe you are smarter due to your preferences.

goldbrick 11y ago

So you're saying you're a hater hater? Nice passive aggressive slam btw.

DonHopkins 11y ago
The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance. [1] “The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” ― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [2] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-...
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  How does Popper address the staggering power imbalance required to use force to suppress intolerance? Can genuine tolerance ever exist in a society where the strong dictate what is politically correct? "Tolerance," to me, has a simple definition: whoever uses force first is the one who's intolerant. I'd be curious to know how Popper avoided the same conclusion.

EdwardDiego 11y ago

> I can't help but think that person is of the lowest intelligence. Oh no! Someone has an opinion you disagree with! Clearly, they're stupid.

esailija 11y ago

Apple hates developers so many developers hate apple, that enough reasoning for you?

zepto 11y ago
No
zepto 11y ago
Apple doesn't hate developers.
- esailija 11y ago
  They want developers to go against their best interests and only develop apps for a very small portion of users. They don't want to compete fairly with developers, making some capabilities inaccessible to developers while keeping them accessible to themselves. If you as a developer are ok with this, it must be some kind of stockholm syndrome.