Why do the big "guns" get more credits for their technical skills? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 06:46:51 am
content: Why do the big "guns" get more credits for their technical skills then they might deserve?What is this title about you think?Well it is about the praise we give to the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for their technical abilities they might not have.Sure they build successful companies which in it self is impressive, but do they have the actual technical skills that we think they have.Take Steve Jobs, where would he have been without Steve Wozniak. What did Jobs bring to the table in making the first Apple. Furthermore we praise him for the GUI he brought with the newer Apples, but the fact is that it was people at Xerox PARC who developed the idea.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interfaceAnd without a lot of good people in the company to develop all the products they sell he would most likely be nothing.Also take a look at what Steve Wozniak did. Was he brilliant? I don't know, making a computer like the Apple II could have been done by many of us. Take a standard processor, slap some memory on to it, a display system, keyboard interface and you have a computer. And basic was not invented by either of the two so nothing to brilliant there.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASICThe same applies to Bill Gates. What did he actually invent? Not MS-DOS, because that was made by Timothy Paterson.https://www.britannica.com/technology/MS-DOSThere are many engineers out there with possibly better technical skills that actually brought a lot to the success of the big "guns" without getting any credit for it. And where would the big "guns" be without them.Sure making a lot of money like they did is impressive, but making idols out of them just for that. I don't know.This is not an attack on their personalities, just a simple question about whether they deserve the hail for their technical skills.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 06:56:07 am
content: There is far more than technical ability required to bring innovation to the world.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 07:44:28 am
content: Because in the world as it exists today their marketing skills are more valuable than your technical skills, of which they had next to none by the way

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 08:18:38 am
content: The answer varies. Jobs was never touted as a technical whiz. But he did excel at marketing and also styling/understanding the market. Wozniak was very good technically. His floppy disk interface was very clever, not something that most engineers would come up with. Sure, much of the Apple II was vanilla stuff, but the clever bits gave it an edge over the many other competitors at the time. That and the recognition that to reach a broader market than the elx/comp sci geeks who were buying Altair and many similar products at the time.Gates was a coder whose initial claim to fame wasn't inventing Basic, but coding a version that was usable and fit in the 16 or 32 kbyte memory space available at the time. Not spectacular, but he beat others to the task.I don't know which other big names you feel get more respect than they deserve, but in all the cases I am aware of they did one or more of three things that not every technical person can do at the drop of a hat. One, they created a unique function by using things in a way not obvious and different than others had done. Wozniak, Tesla and Armstrong (FM radio) are examples of this. Two, they recognized a market that wasn't obvious to others and used average or better technical skills to create a product for that market Musk (Paypal). And finally, three they had the organization and persistence to develop and polish an idea until it is actually marketable. The Wright brothers are perhaps the best example of this. They weren't doing much of anything that others couldn't do or in fact weren't doing. But they kept at it until their combination of minor improvements on existing ideas worked well enough to be useful. Many of Musk's enterprises are examples of this. The Falcon 9 rocket being an example of, as you say, strapping some rocket engines, fuel tanks and some guidance electronics together.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 09:45:18 am
content: In a great number of cases, the particular individual was just lucky. Right place, right time, right connections, right skill set. There's nothing in life that says someone has to succeed just because they are a good programmer. And they need to be driven. I know engineers/programmers who are quite comfortable taking a salary without risk every month, if you want to do something as crazy as start a company like Apple, you need to be prepared to live in a shoebox for a few years, and throw all of your time and effort into it, for maybe a 1% chance of success.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 11:41:26 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 21, 2022, 06:56:07 amYes, and elaborate on that please, with more then a one liner that does not really add to the discussion.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 11:59:14 am
content: I brought this up, because in some other threads it shows some people idolize the two I mentioned but also others with a youtube presence that worked for the companies of the two mentioned.A couple of links to recent ones.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/software-guys-please-no/https://www.eevblog.com/forum/programming/the-next-generation-of-programmers/And being down to earth and level headed I just don't feel the need to idolize people, and certainly not for the wrong reasons.One argument in the thread about Dave Plummer, was that he wrote software, that might be on your computer still today. Is that a reason to idolize him? I wrote software for some company, and it might be that you still receive statements in your letter box that were printed with the aid of that software. No need to idolize me over it.And sure there are others that can go on the list. CatalinaWOW named Musk. Some say he is brilliant, others think he is a charlatan. I certainly don't agree with a lot of his visions.My view on it, is that the world as is today is made by a lot of clever people who don't receive credit for it, but more so by people with a huge craving for money and that it also had a big negative effect on the world we live in today. And it is those people that we seem to idolize.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 12:06:41 pm
content: history just repeating itself,ask 100 people who built the first computer and i'd bet 99 would say turing and have never even heard of tommy flowers

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 12:16:38 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on September 21, 2022, 12:06:41 pm...except arguably Babbage made the first "computer", and various other mechanical and electromechanical computers predated Flowers' ideas, and his weren't even that unique: use tubes, and hope they don't burn out so quickly that the maintenance can't be kept up.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 12:23:32 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on September 21, 2022, 12:06:41 pmIt might be even worse then that, lots might say it was Wozniak.But that is exactly the point. The ones that did the actual inventing are just mere small notes in history. Only a few get proper credit. I know a bit over stated, because there is a long list of names in several fields, like Newton, Pythagoras, Bell, Tesla, Volta, van Leeuwenhoek, etc.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 12:36:20 pm
content: Id argue many early inventors were no more than patent thiefs who had enough cash to pay off the original inventors,marconi didnt invent radio,bell didnt invent the telephone and edision didnt invent anything but all get credited for others work

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:08:05 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 11:41:26 amSince you were clearly focussed on the technical aspects, I wanted to make you aware that there is more to consider than that alone. By making this simple statement, it was an invitation for you to reflect on the narrowness of your question and think about the broader picture so you could work out some ideas for yourself.Some of them are rather obvious - such as marketing - and others a little less obvious - such as building a product specifically aimed at a target market ... as other members have said above.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:13:37 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on September 21, 2022, 12:36:20 pmNobel invented something.(1/4)

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:18:27 pm
content: As you can see in an earlier post, the focus was set on the technical aspect due to the "admiration" basically shown just based on that aspect.But for the other aspects it is still the question if it is a proper reason to idolize them. And also is it really them that brought these aspects to the table? Or are they just the figureheads in the spotlights?Musk for one seems to enjoy the spotlights and make some theater but often fails to deliver on his promises. And still lots put him on a pedestal.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:25:15 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 01:18:27 pmHe delivers the vast majority of what he talks about but on Elon timehttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Elon_time

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:28:52 pm
content: Quote from: m k on September 21, 2022, 01:13:37 pmTesla also.Is Lavoisier a big name?At least he kicked flogiston out.(3/6)It's publicity and herds that want to be with winners.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:39:30 pm
content: Many of the arguments here talk about "who invented something". And the answer is rarely singular, and heavily dependent on your definition of the thing.Who invented the computer? Was it the unknown asian who invented the abacus? Pascal who invented an adding machine? Jacquard who invented the idea of programming? Babbage who combined those ideas into a single machine? One of the several who implemented the concepts with vacuum tubes and/or relays?All who contributed to the magic machines that we embed in everything else added part of that. I think we all agree that some contributed more than others. That met the standard supposedly set for patents "something not obvious to a practitioner in the field"I don't adulate those key contributors, but they have earned my respect. I do agree that the cult like following some of these people have is silly. Edison and Tesla being obvious examples.But will also state that Edison and Musk are prime examples of people who are victims of another kind of cult, those deriding them as mere thief's of others work. Obviously their products depend on the creative work of a great many people. While I don't personally know, I doubt if Musk is the actual creator of most of the innovations in the Falcon 9 or the Tesla car. But he is the one with the product vision, and the one with the commitment to carrying it through. Same with Edison. People of that sort deserve respect.The earth might be better off without these kinds of people, but it would be an earth without people able to discuss the problem with others worldwide, and time to have the discussion while sitting in a comfortable climate controlled space.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:54:37 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 21, 2022, 01:39:30 pmUnfortunately that is something we will never know to be true or not. Because it is not like an experiment that can be done over and over with different sets of parameters.Would be interesting if it could be done though.There might well have been others with some vision about communication between computers and we might still have ended up where we are today, and maybe in a better world, but most likely not due to human nature as it is. Competitive, need to rule over others, greed, etc.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:58:08 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 21, 2022, 01:39:30 pmYes, it works both ways when you are in the spotlights. I would not want to walk in their shoes. That kind of being known and having money also brings a lot of problems.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 01:59:15 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 21, 2022, 01:39:30 pmThat is exceptionally exactly that.Some have said that people like Musk appears only few times in a century, the one right way not so level headed with an opportunity and assets.Gates and Jobbs were not that, they surfed on the wave that was there no matter what and won, when Edison and Must made the wave, or forced it.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 02:27:53 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 01:58:08 pm

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 02:31:15 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 21, 2022, 07:44:28 amEXACTLY. This is why Westinghouse is a giant company today and Nick Tesla died a pauper. Also why Winchester is a giant company company and Benjamin T Henry is almost unknown. Colt firearms is another large company but their fundamental breakthrough was developed by Elisha Root.Oliver Winchester (originally a shirt manufacturer), George Westinghouse and others had the vision to see the potential of the inventions made by other people such as N. Tesla. The only inventor that I can readily think of that was able to commercially develop their own invention and profit from it was Edison.Like him or hate him, Elon Musk is in the same position today. He is leveraging the work of others.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 03:03:00 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 01:54:37 pmActually that's not true. There are a large number of inventions or discoveries that have been made by more than one person sometimes almost simultaneously and other times centuries apart, but for various reasons that person or that country failed to develop that idea. The "Connections" TV series featuring James Burke went into the history of many of those and often talked about why one failed and the other succeeded. A couple of things that I recall, Charles Babbages' Analytical Engine failedas a commercial productbecause it was too complex to be built in quantity by the mechanical production methods of it's day. 2nd The Chinese invented a large number of items long before the west but they remained novelties in China whereas the west produced them in large quantities and it became an everyday item that was available to enough people so that it often changed history. Paper, books, and mass printing and magnetic compasses are a good examples of that. You could even argue that the simplicity of written characters in European languages was a great advancement over the complex characters of Egypt, mid-eastern, China and Japan and that beginning in about the 14th century that lead to many more books become available and more readership and all of that in turn lead to more rapid technical, social, religious and economic development of the west over the east.The social history of gunpowder and the development of effective rockets, cannon and hand guns is a great example of being invented in the east but developed in the west.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 03:15:19 pm
content: I see a lot marketing vs technical skills talk. Which is false dichotomy. What are you supposed to market if you have nothing to sell? You need way more skills than that to get breakthrough things done, especially if you are not some rich inheritor but need to start from zero. You need vision, will to take the risk (most startups fail), skill to attract investors, skill to make/manage a functional team that gets the job done, persistence and much much more. And what Musk have chosen to pursue after Paypal are some of the hardest industries, and certainly not not a way how to make an easy money. For example compare SpaceX and Blue Origin. Latter was funded a two years earlier, had way much richer funder (Jeff Bezos), received way larger investment. SpaceX was funded with money that could be considered a joke in the industry, while Bezos invests $1 billion into Blue Origin each year. SpaceX was on brink of failure, the same as Tesla, while Musk could become bankrupt together with them since he invested all of his remaining money for a chance to save them. So what these two companies have achieved? SpaceX lifts astronauts to ISS, F9 lifts more mass to the orbit than all other rockets combined. Made first reusable orbital class rocket boosters, most used of which has flown 14 times already, has largest satellite constellation by far and actually more that the rest of satellites combined. So what was achieved by Blue origin after all of those years and funding... A small penis rockethttps://www.google.com/search?q=penis+rocketwhich cannot reach the orbit and is only good as a few minute microgravity attraction.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 03:17:06 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on September 21, 2022, 03:03:00 pmYou somewhat stretched what I wrote, and at the same time proofed the rest of my post.I was referring to it being impossible to repeat the exact same time frame/location setup, with a different set of parameters as to see if it would bring a different outcome or not.Your history lesson shows that computers and the software for them would still have evolved to what they are today with or without a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs, and that is what I also think. Because it is not a single person who determines the path taken.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 04:47:50 pm
content: Heron of Alexandria had a steam engine and gears but since slave labour was practically free of charge the time was not right for steam engine.Locomotive was not needed because of labour cost but because of population density.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 05:05:26 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 06:46:51 amTwo things: He dropped out of Harvard to create Microsoft Basic for the recently introduced Altair 8800 which started an industry. Home computing had been relegated to toggling short snippets and watching some lights blink. And we could play music by writing very specific code and having the EMF picked up by a radio. The 8800 came with 256 bytes of RAM!Second: He took the meeting with IBM where he sold MS-DOS even though he didn't have it or write it. He bought it from someone who made a direct copy of CP/M. Unfortunately for Digital Research, Gary Kildall, who actually created CP/M, decided to go fly his hang glider instead of taking the meeting. Things could have been different.Once the PC market exploded, MS-DOS was the only game in town for quite some time. It was adequate for the time but Gates was smart enough to see the GUI on the wall and Microsoft developed Windows, the most ubiquitous operating system on the planet by a large margin.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 05:59:42 pm
content: Which confirms what tom66 wrote. In the right place, at the right time. And it does deserve some respect and shows he could program, but so can many others. Still to me no reason to idolize.And that is what I'm curious about. Why do people feel this need to idolize someone?If you look at youtube and see these videos of the so called influencers, I don't see the why they get so much followers. Most of it is, in my eyes, to stupid to be true, if you get my drift.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 06:28:04 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 05:59:42 pmYou forgot about the right person. Gary Kildall had the chance too but blew it.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 06:33:26 pm
content: Then it should be the wrong person at the right time in the right placeBecause in a sense Gary Kildall was the right person as he created CP/M going on rstofer's words.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 06:41:26 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 06:46:51 amThey… don’t?Steve Jobs was never a tech wizard, nor did he (or anyone else) claim he was. What he was was a visionary: someone who could see the technology that exists, or was on the horizon, and envision how to put it to use. It’s very, very unlikely the computer industry would have developed in the direction it did, when it did, without Jobs. He’s the one who saw a (rudimentary) GUI and thought “everyone should have this on their desk” back when that was a preposterous idea. He’s the one who recognized that a really good finger-driven touchscreen could work as the sole input device on a phone, back when that idea, too, was considered preposterous. Another thing Jobs excelled at (though admittedly with often questionable methods) was pushing the engineers to accomplish the “impossible”. Of course, it was not actually impossible, since they did it, but they routinely did things that were considered too difficult to be practical, or under otherwise unrealistic timelines. Jobs had a sense of taste (i.e. appreciation for quality and style) and understanding of design (especially visual arts and industrial design) that permeates Apple to this day and fundamentally shaped the electronics industry today. One more thing Jobs was was an advocate for the user: he didn’t like things that were hard to use, and he was a mostly-effective foil to Jony Ive’s insane drive for extreme minimalism. (We saw what happened when Ive became the head of software design and every visual affordance vanished...) Was Steve Jobs the only person to possess his abilities? No. But having all of those in one person is very, very, very rare.(As for Xerox: they didn’t invent the GUI either, though they developed the first commercially available GUI-based system. However, it’s categorically incorrect to say, as is often parroted, that Jobs “copied” it: while his visit to Xerox is what exposed him to theconceptof the GUI, the actual GUI Apple went on to develop and sell has essentially nothing in common with Xerox’s GUI — the similarities pretty much end at them both using a bitmap display, a mouse, and having on-screen things to point at. Nothing else works the same, and if you or I sat down at a Xerox Alto, we would not know how to operate it. The interactions are radically different from what we use today. Apple’s GUI, on the other hand, became the model upon which ALL the modern mouse-driven GUIs were based. All of the basic interaction patterns we take for granted — click a thing, drag it or select a command to apply to it — were what Apple, not Xerox, came up with. I’m sure their researchers looked at all the prior art that existed at the time, but they came up with something unlike anything before it. The only real exceptions to the standard Mac/Windows interaction models are CAD software, and that’s because a lot of it predates the Mac. So many of them use the verb->noun (choose command, then choose what to apply it to) interaction model that was common in extremely early graphical software, rather than the noun->verb (select item, then do something to it) model that is prevalent in most software today.)As for Woz: his skill was in accomplishing the same thing using a lot simpler hardware, thus making it more affordable. A famous example of this was the Apple II disk controller, which (combined with strategically offloading of some controller logic to the software) had more functionality using 8 ICs than IBM’s disk controller that used 50 chips!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 06:52:29 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 06:33:26 pmHe was a right person for programming the thing but wrong person to make a business out of it. You may be the smartest scientist or engineer ever but totally waste your skill on doing something mediocre when employed by somebody mediocre. Kildall blew his chance twice actually. There was a copyright issue with the, clone so Kildall eventually got the deal with IBM for selling his OS alongside with MS-DOS/PC-DOS but with 6 times higher price. Not smart to set the amount without considering quantity sold and competitors. So of course MS-DOS became mainstream despite being somewhat inferior. Gates on other hand was very smart about this. He sold rights to "his" OS to IBM instead of just licensing copies... but the deal was not exclusive.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 06:53:46 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 21, 2022, 06:41:26 pmQuoteQuote from the thread I referred tohttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/programming/the-next-generation-of-programmers/msg4426867/#msg4426867To me that implies to be a claim of seeing him as a tech wizard.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 06:57:06 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 21, 2022, 06:52:29 pmSafe guarded this oneIf I'm not mistaken you deleted it a couple of times to get the text right.So we can agree on the fact that Gates was the better salesman and Jobs was a visionary.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 07:19:19 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 06:57:06 pmThe thing is they had the right combination of skills/traits. Had been Gates just a salesman, it's extremely unlikely he would had succeeded. Or Mark Zuckerberg, had he not have a lack of conscience, he would not have Facebook. Basically he was hired to make something similar, so he got paid to do the job but just stole the idea and made the thing for himself instead. After a while he screwed his business partners too.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 08:33:06 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 03:17:06 pmSoftware and computers could very easily have taken a different path. We very nearly ended up with a model based on timesharing on large computers with thin terminals. Which would have been unlikely to expand to all the application areas that occurred when everyone owned their own hardware and software resources.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 08:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 21, 2022, 09:45:18 amThe willingness to accept risk is a big part of it. Ever heard of Ronald Wayne? If not, you're not alone--almost no one has--yet he's one of the founders of Apple. He was so risk adverse that he sold his shares back to Woz and Jobs 12 days later. If he'd stayed, he'd be a billionaire today.

author: hli
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 09:29:28 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 21, 2022, 06:41:26 pmI would say this award shpould got to Alan Kay and the team at Xerox PARC. Look at theDynabookand atA Personal Computer for Children of All Ages. I'm willing to say what these people envisioned was far more visionary than what Steve Jobs did. What he did, though, was to actually commercialize it into a real, sellable product - thats where PARC failed (and there is a talk IIRC from Kay where he explain why this was so). Steve Jobs itself admitted in a late interview that from the three great ideas which were presented to him at PARC he only understood, and took away, the GUI (but missed e.g. the networking).Going back to the 'right time, right place' issue - it still needs the right person (as can be seen with Kildall vs. Gates - both where in the same spot, at the same, but only one of the was actually prepared to do the right thing). Many inventions have many parent, but it still needs the right person to actually connect all the dots and threads. And thats still hard work, and in many cases its just this persistence which made the difference (even Edison is often quoted with 'Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration.'). Yes, many _could_ have created the Apple II, but only Wozniak actually did come up with the technical solutions.

author: strawberry
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 09:55:07 pm
content: Elon got lucky with Paypal.He might be curious about rockets and stuff but he is not engineering them

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 10:47:23 pm
content: This is just human nature. The celebrity types, the people with the looks and charisma, those that were in the public eye, they become well known, fame brings attention and more fame. That doesn't bother me nearly as much as all the nitwit "influencers" and reality stars and whatnot that are famous for what, being famous? At least people like Jobs and Musk and whatnot DID contribute something technical. Charismatic businessmen are needed and they do make a valuable contribution. Without businessmen like Steve Jobs, George Westinghouse, Thomas Edison, and others, the brilliant creations of guys like Wozniak and Tesla would be nothing more than laboratory curiosities.Edison in particular seems to get shit on a lot these days, and while it's true that he was generally a bit of a jerk, his perfection of the incandescent lamp is secondary to his realization that a lamp is of no use without sockets, switches, fuse boxes, meters, distribution, dynamos, and everything else. He saw the business side of things and realized that for the light bulb to be a viable product that people could actually buy, there had to be an entire system developed and marketed alongside it. Woz was certainly technically much sharper than Jobs, but had he not partnered with Jobs, the Apple computer likely would have sold a few dozen to several hundred units to computer enthusiasts and then faded into the footnotes of history.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 11:13:01 pm
content: Both Apple and Google would be nowhere today if it were not the investors who showed up at the right time. THEY were the ones responsible for the success.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2022, 11:24:55 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on September 21, 2022, 11:13:01 pmNone of this stuff happens in a vacuum. Investors are a fungible commodity, it's true that they are needed for most businesses like this to succeed but you may as well credit the company that built the trucks used to transport the goods, the contractors that built the homes in which various garage based businesses started.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 12:22:06 am
content: As hinted before, the problem is the cult of personality. Nobody is perfect and the various paths that someone takes to reach a level of popularity will leave scuffs and marks in the society and in the people around them.In the age of information, positive PR is easier than ever to be created and distributed, thus exponentially feeding to this phenomenon for the non-cautious. Fortunately it can also work the other way and deconstruct this aura of perfection and über abilities or qualifications.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 12:54:00 am
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on September 22, 2022, 12:22:06 amWhile the negative side of PR does provide a counterbalance to the positive PR, the exponential nature of both can lead to excesses in either direction. It is another form of the differences of large numbers problem in numerical analysis. Small errors in either or both of the two quantities meant to cancel can lead to very large residuals.

author: boB
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 01:09:46 am
content: The big gun has to have some brains, obviously...After that, the main thing is that the person (people) that start the company have to take the risk of devoting time and money to getting the product(s) ready to sell. If there are investors, they will be part of that risk and get rewarded as well.Of course, the company has to design something that people will want to buy and also have some business chops.boB

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 03:50:31 am
content: Quote from: m k on September 21, 2022, 01:28:52 pmNah!Tesla took the already inventedconceptof polyphase power & made it a practical reality, just as Marconi did with radio.Tesla talked a lot about how he "invented radio", but he played around a bit & let it lapse, without using it in any practical way.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 05:59:38 am
content: Quote from: boB on September 22, 2022, 01:09:46 amYou left out the workers to make the product. Without them you can have all the brains you want, but end up with nothing to sell.Yes there certainly is risk involved so you need someone with the proverbial balls to make it happen. It is often also EGO that drives it all. There are examples of some with just an average brain, but a lot of ego to make things happen even after failing with some adventures. Then there is of course GREED that also drives a lot. Take the latest with Elizabeth Holmes. Here the investors thought there were big bugs to be made due to a well told fairy-tale.Quote from: james_s on September 21, 2022, 10:47:23 pmSure human nature, but there are many levels in this from having some respect, to sheer adoration, and the latter I don't grasp. But that is psychologyQuote from: james_s on September 21, 2022, 10:47:23 pmYes this is something that is completely beyond me too. How this works I mean. In the Netherlands at some point there was this very asocial family with nothing to bring to the table then well being asocial. Can't remember how it came to be, but they appeared on TV, and the next thing you know is that they where invited to events to make an appearance and the crowds went crazy over it in some sort of adorationBut again, that is psychology and above my pay gradeQuote from: james_s on September 21, 2022, 10:47:23 pmYes without doers we would be nowhere, still living in a cave most likely. But the doers would be nowhere without the thinkers. So we basically need each other to get things done.

author: strawberry
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 08:54:34 am
content: Quoteif it is physics property, everything should balance eventually

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 09:18:04 am
content: Quote from: strawberry on September 21, 2022, 09:55:07 pmHe is. You may say his job title of chief engineer at SpaceX does not resemble reality but he actually decides what will go into the rocket and what will not. He's at Boca Chica rocket site most of the time BTW. Here is a video he talks about how rocket engine works, it gets more technical at about 9 minutes mark.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 04:26:26 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on September 22, 2022, 03:50:31 amHeron of Alexandria(jet engine)(4/8)E,Pythagoras(5/9)

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2022, 08:31:05 pm
content: They had great business skills. Not technical skills (although they still both had a valid technical background, but nothing spectacular.)The main skill of those people is business and vision, along with being at the right place at the right time. That's pretty much the recipe for success.Engineers rarely get any credit actually. The few ones who do are the exception. And those "star" engineers are a thing of the past. (Think Bob Widlar for instance.)Companies don't want star engineers anymore. That game is over. They want people who blend in and on whom they don't depend too much.So if you as an engineer want more recognition, you picked the wrong career. You get to do something you enjoy (hopefully) and get your paycheck. If you want more recognition do something else.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 01:26:58 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 21, 2022, 08:33:06 pmIsn't that model similar to where we are going with "the Cloud"?Our computers are turning into "dumb terminals" by choice, with so many things done by "Apps" which are really only gateways to where the real computing happens.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 05:04:32 am
content: Nothing new about server client computing and probably has always been there. Over 15 years ago I did system management for a company that started to use thin clients connected to a Windows Terminal Server, after having used standard computers with a centralized storage system. Managing both the applications and the data is much easier when it is centralized. But in that setup it is at least your own system and you keep complete control over it.At first the central system was in the headquarters, but with the need for better connections it was moved to a data center, and fiber optic connections were installed to the branch offices.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 05:08:21 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on September 22, 2022, 08:31:05 pmYes. Or invent something really special if you can and start your own company, but then you need the other skills too and you will no longer be able to be a successful engineer, because you have to run your company.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 05:22:04 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 21, 2022, 06:46:51 amBecause they, or people around them,built them into a brand. What you do, can do, or know, matters basically nothing compared to the (public)perceptionof what you do, can do, or know. Managing that perception is what building oneself into a brand is all about.It is not wrong, in any sense, though. It works on humans, that's all; it is part of being a social animal, I believe. What it does mean is that if you are actually interested in what "big guns" know and understand, you start looking at their speech and output and work product with a critical eye; recognizing that a lot of it is brand management –– either conscious or more often unconscious: they do it because it works, not because they decided that that was the way they want to go about their career. In some ways, you'll appreciate facets of their work/brand more, in other ways your appreciation will vanish.However, if you do become critical about "big guns" –– regardless of whether we are talking about engineers, businessmen, political leaders, religions, nations, ideologies, ideas, or scientists –– be careful of who hears you voicing those criticisms. Humans areverykeen about the brands they care about, and will instinctively stab you in the back and try to destroy you if given half a chance, if they feel you threaten their beloved brands. I cannot help but voice them out (a personality flaw), and you can see in at least one recent thread how that makes many otherwise rational and intelligent members here react. So, beware.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 05:39:13 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 23, 2022, 05:22:04 amBeing more active on the forum lately I have learned, and that is why I wrote:QuoteBut since some people don't read very well there is always the risk of it being overlooked and then shit starts to flyAnd the keen observers here know what I'm hinting at, since we mostly read and react in the same "risky" threads.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 05:45:47 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 23, 2022, 05:22:04 amMaybe it is the "critical eye" that is missing in the average "social animal" as to why the adoration reaches, in my eyes, absurd levels.And here I go, sticking my neck out again

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 05:52:26 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 23, 2022, 05:39:13 amYes.An approach I've noticed seems to work is to first point out a good thing about the target of discussion, before pointing out the criticism. Just be honest about it, do not exaggerate or lie. It seems to reduce the perception of the discussion being an attack.Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 23, 2022, 05:45:47 amI agree. We might trace reasons why we have evolved to be this way from early human societies (or even earlier!), but for the purposes of mutually beneficial interaction with other humans, it suffices to accept that we have evolved to be this way.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 08:27:04 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammerQuite a few times in this thread you've suggested that people are 'idolizing' the 'big guns', with Jobs in particular being an example. I think you're being overly derogatory, albeit possibly unwittingly, in using that term. For most of us, we don't idolize these people but we recognise and appreciate the contribution they've made to furthering things. Jobs could be a dick and Apple's walled garden is, ah, not a preferred option, but the iPhone was a jolly impressive thing at the time and pretty much dictated the way all future mobile phones would go. That is really impressive, but in recognising it you're not idolizing anyone.Similarly, Musk is a <expletive censored> and basically takes over someone elses bandwagon, but who else has put a private rocket in space? Not just that but running a taxi service for NASA! By any stretch that's impressive. If you appreciate that you're no necessarily idolizing him - indeed, you might actively loathe him at the same time.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 08:40:10 pm
content: My idea on the question of this topic; that's quite literally how marketing works.I have seen countless of engineers and companies that get all the credits.While a big portion are just reinventing the wheel, or even worse not even that.Just put enough money in advertisement and the whole world will know you for some kind of invention.People will link feelings and emotions to these inventions, but at the same time forget that there might be other inventions maybe even a little better?If you know a thing or two about marketing and physiology (if not, absolute must to read into fascinating part of science) , it's no different than known brands and products.The same goes for patents for example. There are people with tons of patents on their name PER YEAR.That is practically not even possible! I have talked to quite some people in bigger companies like IBM, and the majority were just co-workers (often higher up the ladder) just saying their name had to be on the patent as well.Another example, personally I have seen some interviews with some "field experts" in certain fields of electronics.Most of the time these people are called experts only because they worked for some very known companies.However, the information they were giving in those interviews showed people very clearly that they were just "okay engineers", but also making A LOT of mistakes and wrong explanations.In the end it's no different than celebrities of any other kind; music, arts, religions, movies, kings, presidentsFor some reason, idolizing is really a thing for us human beings.The science behind this can be a pretty long deep rabbit hole.If you want to know a but more about the science behind marketing here are some nice reads to start with to get familiar with certain concepts;Contagious: Why Things Catch On by Jonah BergerAs well as; Invisible Influence: The Hidden Forces that Shape Behavior, also by Johan Berger.Although this isn't hardcore literature yet, it gives already so many insights as well as starting points and references to dive deeper.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 08:47:17 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on September 23, 2022, 08:27:04 pmThe technology itself, incl the old OLD Apple computers were never top notch compared to the competition.Most of the time they weren't even the first at all with a certain product, like the iPod (there were already (many) mp3 players on the market)The only thing that Apple products makes impressive, is the simplicity of the controls and the interface.This was the main thing Jobs understood extremely well, people want things simple, not convoluted.Something which seems very difficult to understand for people who are involved in tech.Especially for engineers and software programmers.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 08:55:08 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 23, 2022, 08:47:17 pmIf you look at the products made relatively recently, actually Apple hardware was top notch in many cases. Like smartphone CPUs having 1.5 -2x better performance than the next best competitor (Qualcomm Snapdragon). Last generation Snapdragon caught up though, but still is noticeably slower.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2022, 10:16:11 pm
content: And they are crushing competition again with the M1 and M2 way outside of the mobile world. Mind blowing stuff.

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 03:15:20 am
content: "Standing on the shoulders of giants..."Don't we all?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 04:32:13 am
content: Quote from: b_force on September 23, 2022, 08:47:17 pmHigh performance was never what the early Apple computers were known for. They were inexpensive and offered a lot of bang for the buck, and they were well documented, the Apple red book contained complete schematics and theory of operation, they were very hackable.The 80s Macs were very expensive and I never had one at the time, but looking back they were vastly ahead of IBM clones of the same era, but the clone offered more for the price.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 06:07:57 am
content: Quote from: james_s on September 24, 2022, 04:32:13 amThe same goes for the TRS-80 from Tandy (Radio Shack), but there was no follow up into the computer market to make it into current day competition. Sure they had the color computers but that is it. Same for commodore, and other brands of the day.So Apple did something impressive to get where it is today, but to me I have always found it to be overpriced. I don't like paying for just the name, and I know that is over simplifying, but it is seen for other brands too. You pay a premium for the name.Because the latest iPhone may be a couple of times faster or have more memory then a simple Alcatel one, it is not near as much as the price ratio. But people stand in line for them when the latest is to be released

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 06:30:16 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on September 23, 2022, 08:27:04 pmAm I? You can speak for yourself that you are similar to me and do not have this level of idolization for others, but can appreciate what they did for society, and maybe some others you know of, but take a look around and extend it to not just the "big guns", you will see that many people have an overly high level of idolization or addoration. Maybe these are not the correct terms for it, but I can't think of another. Maybe Nominal Animal can word it better.Let me share some anonymous quotes of recent outings here about a certain person being criticized. To me that shows a bit to much of putting the guy on a pedestal. Or having a severe man crush. Just read the thread it provided these. I have pointed to it somewhere back in this thread. It is not as bad as these quotes make it to be. At least not in my perception.QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 06:44:50 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 24, 2022, 06:07:57 amBoth of the iPhones I've owned were the previous year's model on closeout so they were actually quite reasonably priced. I have a handful of Android devices and find the Apple stuff to be much more polished although that's not to say they are without fault. With only two viable choices for smartphone platform it's a matter of picking the one I dislike least. There are a lot of things I don't like about the modern Apple computers too, although the one my employer issued me has worked well, the choice of hardware is far too limited for me to consider spending my own money on. If not for the direction Microsoft has taken Windows I wouldn't even have looked at the Mac. I quite like Windows 7 even to this day but I can't stand any of their newer offerings. This is going a bit off topic though.Now as far as Jobs, when he was alive I couldn't stand the guy, but after he died Apple really lost their way and product design suffered for a while. iOS 7 had an ugly and inconsistent UI and the latest still has not reached the level of visual polish that the older stuff had. Idiotic design choices like notches in the displays of phones and even laptops Jobs would never have tolerated. He was a jerk, but his obsession and attention to detail showed in the product line. Even still the trackpads on Apple laptops while comically huge, work much better than any other that I've used. I don't know if it's hardware or software that holds the secret sauce but they got it dialed in just right.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 08:33:16 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 23, 2022, 05:22:04 amAs I have said on other occasions, it is perilously easy to make deadly enemies on the Internet by disagreeing with someone's ideas, or suggesting that the "guru" they quote in support of their position just might have "feet of clay".This even happens on this forum, & when it does, I have tried to just leave the discussion when I detect indignation building in one or more posters----it's sometimes hard, though!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 09:06:37 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 24, 2022, 06:30:16 amTo me it was rather a response to unjustified bashing and name calling of a person Nominal Animal had no idea about whatsoever, but respected by other who gave that response. One thing is justified criticism, name calling with no idea about the person is entirely different. IMHO it's calling out BS, rather than being a butthurt fanboy.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 11:14:03 am
content: Ah yes, you are on the pro team in this particular case, but when you examine that thread, you would see that the quotes I gave were not in direct relation to Nominal Animal his statements. It started with a different quote from someone elseQuoteWhich was interpreted as "Oh look he says that my "guru" is an idiot", and yes that can be implied, but is not what is written.Furthermore it was then a reaction onto what I wrote in reply to one of the quotes, which was misread as being "gossip" and "bashing" the person in question of whom I know nothing about. But read it properly and you would see there is nothing of the kind.And why the need to defend someone who you most likely also do not know, while the person in question is putting himself in a position to be criticized. That is the risk of being present on the internet. Then you can of course also ask, why the need to criticize, I would say somewhat a matter of principle.And to me that is all ok, but try to refrain from calling others names, while accusing them of name calling. Should be simple enough.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 12:07:23 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on September 24, 2022, 06:44:50 amI’ve said the same thing for years: Apple gets trackpads right. (And has from the start: even in the first PowerBooks with them, they worked well.) I’m pretty sure it’s in the software, because when dual-booting Windows on an Intel Mac, the trackpads don’t work nearly as well as under Mac OS X. (Caveat: I haven’t run Windows on any Intel Mac newer than ~2012. If they’ve improved the trackpad drivers, great!)Until I actually used a (standard) trackpad on a Windows laptop, I never understood why so many people hated them and always toted a mouse with them. Once I did… ok, yep, got it! I don’t understand how they managed to make them simultaneously too sensitive and not sensitive enough, but they did.Now, many modern ones (with the multitouch called “Windows Precision Touchpad” support) are far, far better. Not quite as good as Apple’s, but eminently usable. The one in my HP Envy x360 is pretty good. But I tried buying an external Windows Precision compatible trackpad to use at work, and it’s not as nice.So to expand on where the secret sauce is: much is in the software. But all the same, the hardware has to be right (including the device manufacturer properly tuning the trackpad sensing hardware’s settings for the trackpad surface used). The external one, I suspect, is not properly tuned.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 12:21:12 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 24, 2022, 06:07:57 amWell, the price premium depends on the country. In some countries, Apple products cost _way_ more than e.g. Samsung. But in others, they’re practically the same.But even if there’s a significant price premium, it can be worth itifyou are the kind of person who likes to buy a phone and use it for many years: Apple’s OS support for older phones is second to none. iPhones generally get 5 years of OS updates, and for many years now, without any performance penalty. Android phones rarely get more than 2 years or so. So if you use your phone for 3-5 years, even paying 50% more for the iPhone actually makes it cheaper in the long run. (And for the first 1-2 years of use, you’ve got a phone with a faster SoC than any Android phone in existence.)If you’re the kind of person who upgrades every year, then the purchase price alone is a much larger factor.Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 24, 2022, 06:07:57 amWhen did you last see that happen in any significant amount? The lines have largely, quietly disappeared, as Apple expanded online preordering (with delivery on launch day), as well as allowing online iPhone reservations. (Both of which they did before COVID, for context.) The lines, while sorta cool as marketing, are a logistical nightmare for the stores, and annoying for most customers.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 04:29:01 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 24, 2022, 12:21:12 pmI actually wish they would stop updating them as aggressively, my experience has been that they go one upgrade past where they really should have stopped and then performance starts to suck. I also really wish it were possible to roll back, and to tell it to quit bugging me about an update. The vast majority of the time I've owned both iPhones I've had, they have had a permanent red badge on the settings app nagging me of an iOS update. Older versions were worse in that they'd download the gigabyte+ OS update file repeatedly without consent after I'd delete it to free space. I wish the app update pace would slow down too, so many times now I've had apps get ruined by updates that made them worse than they used to be. This culture of easy and rapid updates leads to pointless tinkering. It's easier to implement the latest fads than it is to fix actual bugs. I've been burned a couple of times too by app updates that introduced showstopper bugs which I then had to wait a month or more for a fix because it's impossible to roll back. Generally speaking, I want to buy a device, set it up just the way I want it and then use it for several years without anything changing. I don't want new features, I especially don't want UI changes, I just want my tool to work.

author: Seekonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2022, 04:39:41 pm
content: Many, many years ago at an employment interview I was asked if I understood Windows. I responded that Bill Gates didn't understand Windows. I didn't get the job, but still believe I gave the correct answer.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 05:21:48 am
content: Quote from: tooki on September 24, 2022, 12:21:12 pmAh you took it literally, where it was meant metaphorically. The cult of the need to own the latest iPhone, no matter the cost. Similar to if you are not wearing Nike's, you don't belong, etc.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 09:40:58 am
content: Frankly, diehard fans like that make up a tiny percentage of any of those brands’ customers. And the people who whine about those diehard fans are mostly just diehard fans of competing brands who are annoyed that their preferred brand doesn’t get that kind of attention. (Or people who think they’re somehow better than everyone else becausetheydon’t succumb to marketing — or so they think.)

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 10:42:38 am
content: Sure we are all susceptible to some form of marketing or another, but some way more then others.This, for me has nothing to do with being better, but it is just an observation of human behavior, and you can't deny that it is a fair share of the population that feels the need to own branded stuff just to belong. There is also a thing called peer pressure, where it is forced upon you, and when you don't give in, you are shunned. This is a serious problem in schools. Kids can be very cruel in these matters.And don't get me wrong, this is no whining about things. It is curiosity.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 12:06:28 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 25, 2022, 10:42:38 amI agree with all of that.<rant>What’s frustrating (and I get this a LOT as an Apple user) is that people will accuse me of being a brand whore, and then use that opinion as reason to dismiss/ignore all the very real, non-branding explanations that I give for why I prefer using them (or why the company has done something). Somehow they can’t accept that anyone would choose (or defend) Apple for any reasonotherthan being a brand whore. They can’t wrap their heads around the fact that different users have different needs and different priorities, and thatgoodproducts exist for people with those needs and priorities.</rant>

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 12:41:36 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 25, 2022, 12:06:28 pmThat I can understandI myself have used and played with several Apple products throughout my live, but never bought any. Never felt the need for what they bring, and this just depends on my particular use case of computers, tablets and smartphones. Had some Apple II's and early Mac's donated to me but gave them away when we moved to France.My first computer experience was with TRS-80's and DAI's. The latter were used as a teaching aid in the school I went to, and were called "Ai a DAI" by many referring to the fact they were not Apples, TRS-80's or other know brands of the time. The school also had one of those blue Intel MDS machines. So the bashing of brands is nothing new

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 04:53:21 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 25, 2022, 12:06:28 pmTrue.Branding is orthogonal to the product quality. If I weren't using Linux or BSD, or if I were back doing Photoshop/Illustrator stuff, I'd prefer a Mac instead of a Windows machine. Macs are good tools for many things, and so is Windows, too. The brand thing is completely separate, in my opinion.But I do insist on taking this further, including personal brands in this. You can have a nice guy, expert in some fields, who makes an inane assertion or deliberate choice in building their own brand or managing publicity. You have to be able to criticize them for it, or you indeed are being directed by the brand and not the observable behaviour.With politicians, this goes to the extreme. I don't know how things are where you all are living, but here, politicians words and their voting actions are two completely different things, and trying to point out the difference here gets me labeled as an extremist, or supporter of their opponents. It is quite depressing, really, how people just seem to accept or ignore this, "because they're a good person" or something along those lines.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 05:27:07 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 25, 2022, 04:53:21 pmBranding is NOT orthogonal to product quality, but is somewhat independent.Product quality is also very difficult to judge. The vast majority of us spend the vast majority of our time in one or another ecosystem and become very familiar with how to operate in that environment. That way of operation is then indeed the best for you. Highest quality for you. Regardless of any intrinsic value. And there is always the variation in tasking. Each of the major ecosystems has advantages for some specific tasks. If those are what you do, that ecosystem is gets "quality" points.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 06:15:27 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 25, 2022, 04:53:21 pmAs a multiple citizen, I vote in two countries: USA and Switzerland. The experience couldn’t be more different.Of course, there are duplicitous politicians here in Switzerland. The big difference is that due to the true direct democracy here, politicians can’t stray too far from what the people (all voters, not just their party’s!) want. At one place I worked here, the CEO of the company (~20 people) is also a politician in the federal parliament. And she said one thing that stuck with me, paraphrased: “If, as a politician here, you want to move things, you can’t do anything too far from what the people want, because then it’ll go to referendum and you, the politician, now have zero say”.In USA it’s completely different: politicians say whatever their constituents want to hear, and then go do whatever the lobbies pay them to do. There was a famous study (Princeton university, I think) that found that will of the 99% has no measurable impact on policy. It’s a farce basically.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 06:18:41 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 25, 2022, 06:15:27 pmIt's the same in most western democracies actually. Switzerland is an exception. I think Iceland is also more democratic.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 07:03:39 pm
content: Drifting into politics, but I agree that true democracy is hard to be found, but also rather difficult to uphold. Having to setup a referendum for every decision to be made is hardly doable.In the Netherlands it has happened that a referendum was taken, but the outcome was not what the politicians expected and they just ignored it. That is democracy at work for youQuote from: CatalinaWOW on September 25, 2022, 05:27:07 pmIt depends on what you are looking at. Hardware or software. For hardware it is not to hard to test and judge on quality, but software is a whole other ballgame. It definitely depends on what you want from it. To test it you have to have a proper definition of what it is supposed to do, which can mean huge lists of things to test on and try to find bugs in it. In the case of software running on top of an OS, there is yet another factor in the whole judging trajectory.But I do agree that when it works for you, because of your specific use case, you would rate it at a higher quality then someone for whom it does not work as expected for their specific use case.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 07:52:44 pm
content: QuoteIn the UK they don't hold a referendum unless they know the result will be the one they want. Unfortunately for us, they were over-confident about the result when it came to Brexit.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 07:58:12 pm
content: That’s where Switzerland does it right (IMHO): if enough signatures are collected, then a referendum (rescinding or modifying a law already passed) or initiative (creating a new law) will be held. It doesn’t matter whether politicians like it or not, the process is legally binding.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 08:00:20 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 25, 2022, 05:27:07 pmHow do you figure? Product quality, regardless of how you define it, is completely independent from marketing. Some of the best quality items don’t advertise at all, and some of the most heavily advertised stuff is utter junk.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2022, 08:54:24 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 25, 2022, 12:06:28 pmI get this a lot too and it drives me nuts. I've bought a few Apple products over the years but I am in no way loyal to the brand. I like my iPhone, but since day one I've had it in a plain protective case so it's not obvious at a glance what brand it even is. It's been a great phone but I'm not going to promise that my next phone will be Apple.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 09:00:17 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 25, 2022, 05:27:07 pmHere's why I disagree:Many large software brands actually consist ofacquiredsoftware projects, and are not always developed by that brand at all.Even in open source software, many projects under the same umbrella (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, FreeDesktop.org, Gnome, The Apache Foundation, etc.) differ in quality, because they are developed by completely different sets of developers with completely different ideas on what constitutes "good software" or "good quality" anyway.As time passes, the set of developers and leads slowly change, and the targets and goals vary, leading the software projects themselves to vary in quality. Most of us are familiar with 'bit rot' and 'EEE', when the brand managers' policies change.On the hardware side, a lot of hardware is sold under a licensed brand. It is common for example for tools (like spanners, screwdrivers, drills) for many brands to be made by the same manufacturer, and then just put into different shells. At one point in time, the tools sold under a specific brand may all be of high quality but low price, then next year, after being licensed at great profit to a different manufactured, all new tools are utter crap.I do understand that some prefer to describe this as 'somewhat independent', but to me, because it is notobviousbefore testing each item, and there are items in all quadrants with no universal (only niche-specific) correlation between quality (however you choose to define it) and brand or brand value/appreciation, 'orthogonal' (i.e. completely independent) is the appropriate definition._ _ _The exact definition or qualifier isn't that important, though; I could live with "somewhat independent" just as well.Theutilityof a particular tool –– software or hardware –– can be completely independent of ones opinion of the brand of that tool, as well. And this is what tooki and james_s (and others, including CatalinaWOW, if I understood correctly) pointed at: Not everybody uses a specific tool because of their brand, sometimes the tool itself is just very well suited for a particular task and workflow. Not everybody is using a specific tool because of the brand, even if many are. It tends to be the uninformed who pick things based on the brand, and it is annoying to be labeled as an uninformed one just because some of your tools belong to a particular brand.To me, 'utility' is orthogonal to 'quality' and 'branding', too. Even a low-quality tool can be good enough for a given task. In general terms, 'quality' to me is a complex set of properties reliability, but reliability, robustness, and correctness of results are very prominent in the set. 'Utility' is more about usefulness and ease of use in obtaining a desired effect. As an example, I consider the thin cardboard "wallets" of matches low-quality but useful as always-carry, even though only half of them lit without breaking; and the five-inch long fireplace matches high-quality but not very useful as an always-carry, because they're so large, even though they are easy to lit and can be used in most situations where something needs to be lit on fire. Looking and testing one for how they behave tells me all I care about their properties, and their branding is completely irrelevant to me. (Here in Finland, they often advertise some place or how the manufacturer gives to charity, et cetera; I just don't care.)When it comes to humans, when someone builds a good brand for themselves and becomes a "big gun", it is as if criticism of them (especially outside their field of expertise) suddenly becomes bashing/derogatory/unreasonable! The most annoying thing is that people whothinkthey are not swayed by the brand, seem to be utterly blind to this when it happens to themselves. Sure, the unknowing masses will reject anything coming from a person they dislike, while most scientists and engineers can listen to people in a specific field while ignoring them in other fields; but very few will actually investigate their own opinions to see whether theirelevatedopinion is based on emotions and beliefs and the brand, instead of the actual work or tool at hand.In other words, it is much, much easier to ignore a "bad" brand, than acknowledge a "good" brand is based on nothing but marketing, especially if you like some of the products (for brand-unrelated reasons, like utility in a specific task or workflow), or the person._ _ _To circle back at the original topic:It seems that without personal branding efforts, even a very accomplished developer can be unknown/ignored. How many of you know ofDJB, Daniel J. Bernstein, for example?All of this is in line with what I've written in this thread earlier.To be a "big gun", you need personal branding; otherwise you are ignored.This in fact is one of the things I've suffered from my entire professional career. All my past colleagues, clients, and immediate superiors have said they're very impressed with my skills and effort, but it has never spread any wider, because it seems my own "brand" is to make things work and then be forgotten. I'm kind of an anti-brand, really. However, it is what it is, and I believe I'm happier being a toolmaker and an enabler instead of a "big gun" anyway. I admit, when I was younger, I was very bitter about this when I finally understood it, but nowadays, I just want to help those others who have the same kind of anti-brand tendencies to recognize the situation, and build the kind of "brand" they want. Probably not into "big gun" territory, but enough so that their career is not negatively impacted by this. My advice thus far has been mostly about communications: how to express oneself and ones work, how to use descriptive language to build mental imagery, how to defuse personal attacks by changing their perception of you, and so on –– because I had to learn, the hard way, all that myself. Others can and will help with marketing, wardrobe, and self-expression.Now, if only I could be more concise, and express all this without being so darned verbose!

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 10:46:21 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 26, 2022, 09:00:17 amBut you got to love the hypocrisy in some, where it is ok for them to do the bashing onto whom they think deserves it, but don't you dare to bash someone they have put on a pedestal.You can see this all around.Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 26, 2022, 09:00:17 amWhen I was younger I had some dreams about making things that would make me rich, but not so much about becoming famous. During my working life I also received lots of praise for doing a good job, and earned good money, but knew I would never make something so special that it would bring me that big money. I lack the vision for such. I'm good at bringing someone else their idea to life, and that is not where the real money is. Also learned that money is not everything, but it is nice to have enough to live a comfortable enough life. Which is what I'm doing.Allows me to do the things I like and lend a helping hand where possible. What more do you need in life?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 10:58:27 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 26, 2022, 10:46:21 amThe problem is that it’s oftennothypocrisy: one party may be much more knowledgeable about the situation, whereas the “idol”-bashers frequently come from a place of clickbait headlines and blind hatred. To them,any and alldefense of the person is idolatry, no matter how factually correct the defense may be. The mere act of defending constitutes idolatry to them; the inaccuracy of their own accusations is irrelevant to them.That is a very disingenuous, manipulative way to “debate”, and is essentially gaslighting the person who is actually factually correct. Unfortunately, this is very common.And it’s often combined with “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations, where the haters will decryeverypossible outcome, e.g. “Oh, they cut off old devices from the new OS? LAME!” vs. “Oh, so the new OS slows down old devices? LAME!” vs. “Oh, some of the hot new OS features are not available on old devices? LAME!”It’s irrational hatred, and what the haters often do is assume that your “love” for the brand is as strong as their hatred of it, which I frankly don’t think is the case very often.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 02:15:46 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 26, 2022, 10:58:27 amNo, I don't think that is the actual problem. I actually feel that that is an emotive argument, borne from the same thing you are describing yourself...I believe the problem is that too many humans only voice their opinions, instead of examining and explaining the basis of their opinion and reasoning.Interestingly, this is still the exact same mechanism why one can only become a "big gun" in any career by building oneself into a brand.The roots of this mechanism are in human sociology and psyche; we are hierarchical social animals, evolved to be this way. Very few humans observe behaviour, and instead rely on "recording" theemotionsthat the behaviour and interactions they observe creates in them.This is useful and works for social interaction –– and is exactly how brand-building works ––, but it isn'trational, and it does mean that human expertise and abilities are always secondary to brand-building/social skills.As to the other thread and me "bashing" anyone, I do believe I have demonstrated here and elsewhere that I do not hate people, I hate specific behaviours. It goes so deep for me that I can, and have, had a very heated argument where I utterly hate someones behaviour, but at the same time, in an unrelated person, am very calmly discussing something else with that same person, often even trying to help them (which surely throws them into a loop, because so few people actually argue about behaviour and opinions instead of people or persons). (Check my past interactions with Simon the moderator, for example.)Perhaps my characterization in that other thread was poorly worded/described, but I do see it very often and find it utterly deplorable; and do believe that pointing it out in very strong words is always warranted. I even left StackOverflow/StackExchange because of a facet of the same behavioural cluster: "big guns" that refuse to acknowledge any error they make, and assert their "advice" is correct without any basis, even though it leads learners and others completely astray. Instead, they concentrate on the brand-building and social gaming...In the context of this thread, I probably should just summarise that based on everything I know, becoming a "big gun" is a matter of brand-building, and involves deep human social behaviour that we cannot change, and therefore should not rail against either, but instead accept and try to use as a tool whenever appropriate. This does mean that when observing a "big gun" (or rather, their work product and output) rationally, the fact that they are a "big gun", an authority in their own field, really means absolutely nothing: it does not indicate anything in particular about their work product and output.At the very core, it boils down to the same (logical) argument why popularity does not correlate with quality or usefulness, no matter how many humans (or flies) disagree.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 03:03:00 pm
content: Branding and quality are not orthogonal. A bit pedantic, but if they were truly orthogonal there would be no relationship between brands and quality. Which is reputed because there are some brands based on quality.The old HP. Craftsman. Snap On. Rolls-Royce. L. L. Bean.These associations may not last (HP), but at least for some period of time the product, the brand and the marketing are all tied together. And most important, that connection is intentional.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 03:46:50 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 26, 2022, 03:03:00 pmIncorrect. Occasional correlation is not proof of dependence.When you have brands that at one point in time had good products, and at another point bad products, that itself is proof of orthogonality. It does not mean a correlation is not possible, it just means correlation is not implied.Whether there is any correlation between a particular brand and some facet or property of its products, depends on other things, especially current leadership (humans in charge of that particular brand).Technically:We are using the statistical definition of "orthogonal":statistically independent, with reference to variates. I am specifically using it across many brands, not referring to any specific brand. The fact that there may be brands where brand value or appreciation is not statistically independent of product quality right now, does not mean it will never be. Such occasional statistical dependence is not causation: it s the result of extraneous variables (variates neither brand value nor quality) correlating with both quality and brand value. The main such extraneous variable is business owner long term plans for the brand. Those plans are not available to us, therefore we cannot predict the quality of a specific brand at any given future time.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 03:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 26, 2022, 02:15:46 pmThat contradicts with an other statement of yours, where you specifically state that "you hate people but like individuals"But this thread shows that it is possible to have a discussion without "overheating" and I think that it has to do with how people perceive what is written. Some just don't see the difference between an attack on a person or on their behavior. And then without taking time to think about it hit the reply button and start spewing their emotions. Understandable, but it leads to "overheating" when others do the same.Quote from: tooki on September 26, 2022, 10:58:27 amI guess it depends on the situation and how things are expressed, but go and find yourself the recent events I'm referring to where I perceive it as hypocrisy. The keen observers know what I'm hinting at.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 04:09:36 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 26, 2022, 03:03:00 pmNo, man, just no.You’re conflatingquality,marketing, andreputation. Actual quality is completely orthogonal to marketing.Perceivedquality (which isn’t actual quality) and reputation are definitely influenced by marketing, but none of those actually affect quality.Note that there’s a unidirectional direct relationship between actual quality and perceived quality/reputarionActual quality can definitely directly affect perceived quality. But perceived quality doesn’t directly affect actual quality. (That’s defined by the materials and manufacturing processes only.)

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 04:12:46 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 26, 2022, 03:58:59 pmIf you want me to look at something, send me a link. I’m not wasting my time on guessing games.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 04:14:38 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 26, 2022, 03:03:00 pmThe two are at least not connected together as they used to be. Quality and long levity have diminished over the last decades. Probably also has to do with the rise of so many brands and of course reduction in price.But for some brands I feel I pay to much for the quality I get, just because of the brand. Look at power tools. I have a Bosh cordless screwdriver with "special" electronics in there, and it sucks. Was not cheap, but of course when it ran out of warranty it started to show weird behavior. Not working when I pull the trigger. Bang it against something and it works again, but not all the time Took it apart, re soldered joints, checked the circuit board, etc. No dice. When the battery is less full it seems to work better, but still not all the time. So not to happy with it, and when I am in need of another I don't think it will be a Bosh again. The one I had before, also a Bosh worked fine for many years until the brushes gave in. Had minimum amount of electronics in it.So a popular brand is not a guarantee for quality.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 04:20:28 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 26, 2022, 03:58:59 pmThere is no contradiction. If you do see one, it is only due to my insufficient control of the English language.The former means I do not hate any single person, but do hate specific behaviours. The latter means I dislike groups of people, even though I like individual persons. The "hate" in the latter is hyperbole, too; intended to highlight the difference between my attitude between individuals and groups of people.My dislike for groups isn't in-built, either; it has slowly grown due to the typical group behaviour dynamics, which I dislike. Essentially, I do not dislike groups of people, but the typical behaviours I see when people form larger groups. (My own limits are such that while I can separate person and behaviour, I really cannot separate groups of persons from the observed collective behaviour of the group.)Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 26, 2022, 03:58:59 pmIt is important to remember that any reaction to what someone writes on the net, is not based on the person of the writer, but only on their output. We do not perceive the person themselves, except through what they write; and the perception is largely defined by our own experiences, and is fully subjective, not objective.As to hypocrisy – in the"the practice of engaging in the same behaviour or activity for which one criticises another"sense –, we are all occasionally guilty of it; it too is natural. What really matters, is whether one examines ones own behaviour the same way they examine others' behaviour, rationally.It is my hope that the same criteria and examination is extended to all, regardless of fame/brand/attractiveness/accomplishments/title, including to "big guns". And in the same vein, that you can still appreciate a person, and/or their work, while doing that examination. And, that even when someone isn't a "big gun", what they have to say or show can be just as important and useful as anything a "big gun" might produce.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 04:26:06 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 26, 2022, 02:15:46 pmAre you referring to me claiming the haters are uninformed? I have good reason to say that: they make patently false claims that are easily disproven, or are parroting dishonest headlines whose claims are similarly easily disproven (or placed into the larger context that eliminates whatever malicious intent the claim was meant to indicate).**Prime example of the parenthetical: the headlines claiming massive suicide rates at Apple supplier Foxconn, with the implicit or explicit claim being made that the working conditions caused a suicide epidemic. The missing context: 1. Foxconn isn’t just an Apple supplier, they supply almost every major IT company to some degree, and 2. the suicide rate at Foxconn during that period was significantlylowerthan that of China as a whole! Statistically speaking, there should have been farmoresuicides at Foxconn during the time in question. But “Foxconn installs suicide nets to reduce their already low suicide rate” isn’t as clickable a headline as “Apple supplier forced to install suicide nets to stop rash of employee suicides”.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 04:41:03 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 26, 2022, 04:20:28 pmNah, I was just teasing you a bit. I now exactly what you mean. I'm the same. Like to be with others in not to big a groups. Prefer 4 to 6 max for a dinner. It is then still possible to have good conversation without it getting rowdy. But most of the time I prefer being on my own.Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 26, 2022, 04:20:28 pmThat is certainly true, because on the net you can only make up in your mind what a person is like based on what is written. What on this forum also has to be considered is that many are not native English writers. And that also makes a difference in what the intention of what is written might be. And errors are easily made, by both native and non native. No need to judge on that.Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 26, 2022, 04:20:28 pmO that is for sure, because we are all human, but some are better in seeing there own faults then others, which is also normal in human behavior. We are all individuals and differ from each other.Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 26, 2022, 04:20:28 pmMine too, but it is sometimes very hard to maintain some respect.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 04:52:16 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 26, 2022, 04:26:06 pmBut that is a big problem with news reporting. It needs to be attractive to lure in the "public", and the "public" does not like to dig deep and just take it in, distort it and then talk about it and things blow up. Think back at an exercise in school, where you sit in a circle and have to tell a story to your neighbor, which in turn has to retell the story to his neighbor, and so on. At the end the story has changed.To get the actual fact above table you have to do the work and that is what most don't want to do.Or someone is so fixated on something in particular that only that is the truth, no matter how well you can disprove it.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 04:54:33 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 25, 2022, 06:15:27 pmIt's interesting, although I wonder how well such an arrangement would work somewhere like the USA, where there are now essentially two fairly evenly sized teams that are diametrically opposed and becoming steadily more polarized. A true democracy tends to disregard the wishes of the minority while the majority always get their way. Just what "the people" want depends on which people you talk to. I've never been to Switzerland but I suspect the population is significantly more homogeneous than that of the USA. Certainly the country is far smaller, the population of the entire nation being roughly equivalent to that of the city of New York.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 05:00:05 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on September 26, 2022, 10:46:21 amI'm quite convinced that this is something that is buried quite deeply in human psychology. At the root we are tribal animals and this is tribal behavior. Criticism of anything associated with the tribe is an attack on part of the identity of a member of that tribe and thus an attack on that individual.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 05:33:48 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 26, 2022, 04:26:06 pmNot really; I was focusing on the "frequently come from ... blind hatred" part.Both brand proponents and haters seem to be equally uninformed in my experience. I agree with your example, and base the "equally" on the common retort that "this has worked for me for years, therefore you must be lying when you claim you are having issues with it".Quote from: james_s on September 26, 2022, 05:00:05 pmWell put. It is something we have to live with in general, and is therefore neither good nor bad, just a fact of life. (There are many quite positive things that are intrinsically intertwined with that, like "neighbourliness" and altruistic co-operation within ones own "tribe", too.)Beyond the tribal society, those instincts become counterproductive, especially for engineers/scientists/teachers, who need to apply engineering and scientific principles instead of tribal morality in their work.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 07:26:21 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on September 26, 2022, 04:09:36 pmBoth you and Nominal have missed the point. And HP is a good tool to describe why. I understand and agree with your definition of statistical orthogonality. And will concede that over long intervals the correlation will tend to zero. Entropy says that is true for any kind of organization, from bacteria through solar systems.The difference is in intent. If the brand owner wants their brand associated with quality, actions will be taken to achieve that. Honda and Toyota are other examples. It was once true of HP and then as management changed it wasn't true.When a relationship occurs as a result of intentional action you can't say that the correlation is meaningless. You can however choose a data set that washes out that result. (All companies over all time.).You can also use that information to make predictions about the quality of new products. Barring changes in management or company policy the likelihood of good quality from a brand built on that reputation is higher than a random selection.Perhaps another way of saying this is that the existence of a brand isn't correlated with quality. And that the concept of brands is orthogonal to quality. But some brands are associated with companies that have a strong commitment to quality. Some have maintained that commitment for many decades.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 07:48:36 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 26, 2022, 07:26:21 pmAnd then all too often short sighted management will reduce the quality and extract profit from the reputation. Sooner or later the brand becomes tarnished and then it is never perceived the same again, but by that point the person who did that has run off with the money.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2022, 08:07:04 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on September 26, 2022, 07:48:36 pmConsidering it can be said that staying for more than a few years at big tech companies in California is a bad tone... And job hopping results in a much faster career progression.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2022, 07:15:45 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 26, 2022, 07:26:21 pmNo, I acknowledged your point already, and believe this is more a disagreement about the relationship between orthogonality and correlation in statistics.I already explicitly described that there are brand owners that do emphasize product quality, but that I do not believe this has anything to do with how I use the term "orthogonal" in statistics. That is, I acknowledged your point and agreed it happens, but insist that it has nothing to do with how I use the term "orthogonal" here.To me, statistical orthogonality simply means that you have two variables whose correlation depends on completely extraneous things. Correlation is possible, but not necessary. Here, the key extraneous thing is brand owner intent. As customers/users, we do not have access to the intent, but we can estimate it statistically, and use it to estimate the quality of a given product. Note how this isn't modeling the brand–quality relationship, because there is only one particular brand involved; it is just using the brand as an identifier when estimating the brand owner intent for a particular product.Perhaps I'm using the term "orthogonal" wrong; I could be, but I checked the terms I know in a dictionary, and it seemed the best match to describe the above. (It is exactly this kind of key term nuances and understanding that I have the most trouble with in English. When speaking English face-to-face, body language provides a lot of cues; when interacting in English almost exclusively with written text, those cues are derived from context, with very little data, and are easily misconstrued. Another term whose subtext/cues I have trouble with is "to emerge": before emerging, did that thing exist or not? Was it just invisible/hidden? What are the exact emotive subtext in comparison to "reveal", "create", "construct"?)Now, above, by "as customers/users, we", I mean engineers and scientists and thing-oriented people as opposed to people-oriented people.They are more likely to assess the brand by their emotive reaction to it, and thus are more likely to be swayed by advertisements (that work by associating certain mental imagery and emotions with the brand). They more often choose the product because of the emotions and associations they experience with the brand, since the product itself (if brandless) does not create any emotional response –– remember, they're people-oriented, not thing-oriented.It is at one extreme of the scale where we get both fanbois and haters. At the other end of the scale, we have the brand-unaware nerds who cannot even remember the manufacturer of the device, but can recite their specifications at any time.Obviously, most people are not either-or, but somewhat people-, somewhat thing-oriented, so their own experience and needs regarding the product itself means that persons approach to brands varies.And that, in my opinion, means that observation and analysis of ones own behaviour and choices is important in understandingwhywe do the choices we do, so that we can learn how to do even better ones in the future. Just commenting on others' is rarely useful, unless the behaviour is particularly notable.It is also why talking shop, honestly, about the tool choices we have made, especially the errors in our judgement when choosing a tool –– or adopting the opinion or advice of a "big gun" ––, is so useful and fun to us more-thing-orienteds. If done with compassion and not antagonistic emotions.