I don’t always agree with what you say. Sometimes you’re wrong.
BUT You DO back up what you say with facts and well thought out reasons (or reasoned opinions) based on hard facts & observations.
Like I said i don;t agree, but it’s hard to argue with you.

As I learned growing up from Dad– You argue like a Jesuit. It’s tough to win against you.

I’ll keep reading! Great analyses.!

From Alaska

I registered specifically to leave this comment.

I read your stuff often and I enjoy it.

I read John Gruber’s stuff often and I enjoy it.

Please don’t go down the route of snide comments and pissing matches.

Keep writing the good stuff, and if what you’re writing supportable information, then it’ll be obvious to readers.

“Show it, don’t say it”, as the advice often goes.

Thanks,
Colin.

I beg to strongly disagree, sir. Microsoft’s strength, and indeed possibly its ultimate weakness, is marketing. Its PR & perception of itself may be hilariously skewed, as we have seen in the past few months (Mojave, Seinfeld, I’m a PC et al) but its marketing juggernaut is hard to question.

You mean marketing cream puff. And iut’s damned easy to question, because it’s true, Microsoft is, and has always been totally incompetent at marketing.

I have no doubt that if Bill Gates could turn back time, he would have reined back his marketing attack-dogs a little bit against the likes of DR-DOS, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, Netscape Navigator and others that they mercilessly ground into the dust, thus depriving his software engineers of any meaningful competition to improve against – the result being that for the past 15 or so years, they’ve had as their only competition the previous decade’s version of their own software, UNTIL NOW…

Bill G never marketed against any of these companies and their products. What Microsoft did was “cut off their oxygen supply” by lobbying the computer OEMS into installing only Microsoft software on computers, and by making undocumented changes to APIs so that things quite working.

It must be difficult for a monopoly to avoid going into defence mode (led inevitably by Sales and Marketing) when as far ahead of the competition as Microsoft finds itself, but it can be fatal not to (as Apple found out in the 80s).

Do you have a clue what you are saying? Really? You insist that Apple held over 90% market share at one time. OK, Prove it. Apple has never held 90% market share in any area, even portable music players where they are the dominant manufacturer.

Only a spiritual revolution, coupled with a wholesale butchering of middle management and their godfathers higher up in the hierarchy (as happened in the mid-90s at a well-known corporation) can save Microsoft from eventual decline, in my humble estimation.

Actually what will save them will be a shareholder’s revolt. Until Bill G, the largest individual shareholder gets upset and takes action, it will be more of the same.

By the way, what have you been smoking, I want some.

I was surprised to find Glenn Fleishman assume a comment in favour of RDM at Macworld was a fake alias of Daniel’s own making. Talk about insulting! Yes, there are a lot of actual readers over here. Thanks for presuming us fake!

Google for Glennf and “sock puppet” if you fancy a look. (I’m on my touch so no copy/paste.) Indeed Twitter is pretty rife with RDM bashing from the Mac technorati. Gruber seems pretty level compared to some of them.

As for why they have their knickers in a twist? Ah, who cares. Funny how they keep on reading!

Your analysis is often the most interesting and accurate on the web, and a lot of your articles on the history and future of Apple and Microsoft should be required reading for anyone with even a passing interest in computers.

However, when you personally attack others, even if they deserve it, I think it really does you a disservice, as I think it can hurt your reputation. Just take down their arguments, cooly and calmly apply some of your obvious insight and show how wrong they are. Don’t let them write you off as a shrill fanboy.

Keep the articles coming though, they’re very much appreciated…

well, Dan, it’s not hard to explain. you’re technically brilliant, so some are likely jealous because you show them up big time. but more than that, you’ve got a lot of attitude. it is fair to say you are openly contemptuous of the stupid and the phony. about half your articles attack such things (and MS). that makes RDM a great read, but it takes you out of the category of standard journalism or any possible status as a dispassionate authority. you’re too “hot” for anything corporate or establishment.

anyway, the world needs what you do much more.

Furthermore, to the extent that you succeed without their help, the less power they have later on to call upon you for favors, and when you refuse, to try and destroy you.

Your keen insight and entertaining writing style has afforded you a high profile with loyal and evangelical readers (I felt personally gratified when you were featured on MacBreak). But the “Digerati” are all too often a mere echo chamber, and are beholden to the tyranny of thought that comes with being too close to the issues (and each other).

If I had to venture a guess, I’d say that’s what’s keeping MacBreak, Daring Fireball, and others from having a more level head on the App Store issue: maybe they’re too close to some people that have been personally burned by the policy. It seems since you called him on it, Gruber’s analysis of other topics has suffered as a result. I noticed it in his Mac/PC post yesterday, and I can’t have been alone. (your stats are evidence).

Oh one more thing… is there any chance that someone writing as Pauper McFilth would expose the backroom dealings that prevent Mac establishment types being named?