"I get the feeling that somewhere in Cupertino, a room full of Apple engineers are giggling."
Since nobody here saw Apple's tablet yet, I don't get the point of the comparison. Do you automatically assume it will be miles ahead just because it's coming from Apple?
For me the "Hacker" part of Hacker News is that I tend to root for the smaller guy, with the clearly unpolished/non-existent PR dept, that actually delivered a product.
I automatically assume that if Apple are going to produce this rumoured tablet in early 2010, they're going to have clearly thought about what people are going to do with the device.
The biggest problem with selling a tablet is : "When and why do you use it in your life?" If the average consumer is going to drop $500+ on a flat monitor, the vendor is going to deliver a compelling story about where this device would fit into your life, and how the technology can be used to do something new, exciting, and compelling. IE, Marketing, which is Apple's forte.
I don't see any of that yet in the "JooJoo", hence my original comment which was intended as a commentary rather than a sneer.
For me the "Hacker" part of Hacker News is that I tend to root for the smaller guy, with the clearly unpolished/non-existent PR dept, that actually delivered a product.
For me, the "hacker" part is that I use what works for me, in ways that work for me. Not sticking with worse equipment that doesn't quite work how I want it to, simply because the company that made it isn't big (yet).
I agree - that's why I'm writing this comment on a MacBook - but at the moment no one can buy Apple's tablet, so the choice isn't there. My comment was more on the sneering feel of the OP.
I won't downvote you, but you're accusing a bunch of people of upvoting that comment just because it was already upvoted, then insulting those people, then sneering at them and calling them stupid. If your goal is really to reprimand the community, you don't do it by being a douchenozzle yourself.
I upvoted the comment because, for all Wired is jizzing over it, we're talking about a product that was just released. There're no really interesting information here. And from what I see of the product, it looks painfully limited. Perhaps it executes well, but it's just not doing much. Compare to Apple, which makes products that do a lot and still manage to do it well.
So when Wired mentions how it's just like the iPhone zomg!!!, I get this little voice in my head telling me the author doesn't know what he's talking about. That makes me more willing to upvote somebody making a snide comment that I agree with.
Maybe it's not the most intelligent HN comment, but how's that become groupthink to upvote it? How's it stupid or worth your losing your mojo?
I won't downvote you either, but to answer your first question, it is group think because it is a vague one-liner that puts down a rather great accomplishment from an underdog in favor of a mainstream brand name. The added fact that "it's not the most intelligent" comment and it is indeed being upvoted reinforces the argument that groupthink is at play.
If by jizzing all over it you mean writing a review that points out that it's got a great form factor and the touch screen works great but it's very slow, has some odd features, and doesn't do much other than surf, then you're right on.
Did you read the article?
And yes, your description of my sneer as having all the hallmarks of a sneer are right on too.
Wired is writing a kneejerk review. I don't trust their criticisms just as I don't trust their compliments. They simply haven't had the JooJoo for long enough.
If you're only posting to be a cunt, there's no reason to be posting at all. You're allowed to sneer on your cozy little weblog for all your friends to read. Here we're pretending to be gentlemen.
You got downvoted because you baselessly accused the parent poster of being racist in his comment. If you had left out that comment and just asked the question, you would have likely been upvoted instead.
Apple engineers might be laughing because their prototype tablet - which they have likely been working on for a year - is probably far beyond the the JooJoo pad in innovation. The JooJoo pad is not bad, but it's also not particularly innovative (an iPod Touch resized to 10" would already be a better product, just to give an example).
Also, in order for the JooJoo pad to succeed, it needs strong marketing. Apple is the master of marketing, and the team behind the JooJoo pad abandoned someone who would have been an effective marketer and buzz-generator (and who gave it a great name - the CrunchPad). No matter what happened between Fusion Garage and Arrington, FG should have hired a competent marketing team to come up with a name and strategy for promoting the device.
The parent comment in itself was vague enough to be interpreted as such. I'd rather have an open discussion about such issues instead of covering them up as though they are not there.
I should also point out that the key word in your comment is might. I can just as easily say that somebody might be justified in being offended by the parent comment.
Do you know how many Apple engineers and product managers are Indians? Silicon valley is not the place you wanna play the race card. Desi-coders are a fact of life.
Which is why I doubt somebody at Apple would be giggling, regardless of what they have up their sleeve. Hence my initial comment and follow up question.
To be clear: the parent comment is vague enough to be interpreted as offensive.
the parent comment is vague enough to be interpreted as offensive.
This is false. There is absolutely nothing in the parent comment that could reasonably be interpreted as racist/offensive toward Indians.
I assume you're fixated on the "Cupertino" part of the sentence, but this part of his comment is a completely normal construct of English to creatively refer to a person or organization. Another example of this would be if Microsoft lost a patent suit against a European company and someone said:
"Somewhere in Redmond, a chair is being flung against a wall.".
The above quote would have nothing to do with racism or "US vs. Europe". It would be a creative way to refer to Microsoft, specifically to Steve Ballmer who is rumored to have thrown a chair across the room after receiving some bad news.
Your interpretation of the possibility of the comment being offensive is simply wrong, and it's unacceptable to accuse someone of racism based on an incorrect interpretation of a comment which you weren't even sure about. At the very least, you should have politely asked the poster to clarify.
Linguistically there is no reference in the parent comment to what the Apple engineers should be giggling at; also, the word giggling can be interpreted as ridicule. Based on my life experiences in seeing how "non-Indians" have dealt with off-shore development teams in India, I think my interpretation is perfectly reasonable. I know these are isolated cases and not the norm in the IT world, but the parent comment in itself is fairly non-representative of HN.
"Giggling" does refer to ridicule in this comment. But why would you assume that the ridicule refers to the race of the people involved rather than the actual product? There is no basis for coming up with that conclusion.
I'm sorry that you have witnessed mistreatment against Indians by non-Indians in the past, but that does not give you the right to baselessly slander the reputation of a stranger because you personally misinterpreted what they said.
You don't know anything about the original poster; he could be Indian (or have partial Indian ancestry) for all you know. He might have been the leader of a campaign for equal treatment of off-shore development workers. You don't know him, and here you are accusing him of racism because you witnessed some other people being racist to Indians in the past. I don't know what else I could say to you to explain why this is wrong, so I'll just stop here.
I regularly work with Indians, and have plenty of Indian friends, and co-incidentally love Indian food. Race did not even enter my mind upon writing my original comment.
I guess the implication was that something that Apple had designed would have been better in some way. I don't think it was intended as a slur against Fusion Garage in particular. I imagine someone would have made a similar comment regardless of who had produced this.
Chandra, the CEO of Fusion Garage, is Singaporean, not Indian. He is of Indian origin (i.e. his parents were Indian) but he was born & raised in Singapore.
Because Apple's rumored to launch a tablet themselves in the next 6 months, and with all the scandals surrounding this one, they'll have even less competition.
In case you haven't noticed, that rumour has been flying around for years now.
Someone has already made a device which they are going to start selling from next week. And you think that makes less competition for an imaginary device?
I couldn't think of a better definition of fanboyism.
As for this tablet thing. Every person whose sources I trust have said the Apple tablet will be announced in early 2010. They've been saying early 2010 since late 2008, so I think I'm assuming that's correct. And I'm not saying it will be better than this glorified web browser, but Apple has a pretty superb track record when it comes to making new and innovative products. So there's hope that it might be really cool, as opposed to this, which is really lame.
It's unnecessary. I personally think that between an iPod touch and a Macbook, there's no issue with the currently-existing portable market. I use an iPod to read and write and browse the Internet without any complaints. For $500 especially this is nothing interesting without the controversy.
Now, that's one of the reasons I'm interested now in the Apple Tablet. I'd bet that if Apple is releasing one, it's because they've figured out something clever that I'm not seeing myself, and their product will stand out from its competitors in terms of core functionality, and I'd like to see what that is.
I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude. But it would certainly be a better conversation if you stated your own opinion rather than trying to explain others'. How does one know you don't implicitly agree?
