Not reading anymore, soda? The original story this one is based on has been floating around for months. Unfortunately, you've got it completely backwards. The premise is that most technology, particularly from Microsoft, is not worth the added productivity. There is simply not enough gain and innovation to rationalize the cost. That the tech industry is dependent on introducing new products which further lock the consumer into being dependent on these and other products, etc... (sound familiar?)
Microsoft and Bill Gates are the ones pushing the post-PC Digital Decade (which I believe has been going on for 2 and a half decades since Gates predicts the same sh!t every year, year after year)....
Sorry, soda, this article presents the contrary view as written by Carr, says the antithesis is represented by Microsoft and Bill Gates himself (gotta have it technology; it's gonna make your life so much better!), and tries to point to a happy medium where tech innovation is still worth buying while conceding a word processor is still a word processor.
You really shouldn't sit on your @ss and not read the story. I happen to lean more towards Carr and away from this article, certainly I lean way away from Gates's vision. It sounds like you do too? Is that true? I guess you didn't realize it was about the view that the need and importance of technology is diminshed and no longer significant as it might have been?
This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, November 17, 2003 at 17:24.
|