I was a skeptic when Apple came out with the iPhone, iPad and the watch and ended up eating my words. I use all three products daily. #
When the iPhone came out I was a Blackberry user and loved it. I was angry with Apple for not running Mac software on the phone. #
I had reasons for not liking the iPad and watch, but eventually used the iPad even more than the iPhone and I wear the watch every day. #
None of them for me were revolutionary products, but they were good products. Worthwhile products. Impossible to resist.#
Update: On the other hand, here’s my one-month review of the first iPhone. It was not at time, for me, a winner. #
Scripting News Annex 
Posted by Justin on September 17, 2006 at 6:59 am
By the way Dave, regarding yesterdays posting of a the “WhyGoogleSucks.com” URL. If you really wanted to be nasty about it, MS will pick it up for you for free right now if you join their Office Live Beta program.
The only problem is then you’d have to pick up a “WhyMicrosoftSucks.com” url too.
Posted by kosso on September 17, 2006 at 8:49 am
Re: ‘Web2.0’ : I couldn’t agree more 😉
Posted by Tom Morris on September 17, 2006 at 8:55 am
The thing that’s interesting about Web 2.0 is that it’s not strictly defined. It’s not a specification. And thus certain people are likely to say, “well, it’s all bullshit”. Art isn’t explicitly defined – there’s no objective categorisation of what art is and is not. But it uses a family resemblance view of language. The fact that someone hasn’t found the appropraite way to turn Web 2.0 in to a dictionary entry doesn’t mean that the good things – open APIs, a users-in-charge mentality towards a person’s data (open data standards like XML, open interchange mechanisms like REST and XML-RPC etc.) and interoperability between services is bullshit.
Web 2.0 has excess – the idea that all social problems in the world can be solved if you use enough Ajax and DOM scripting, and the fact that perhaps VCs aren’t approaching it with enough skepticism – but to me Web 2.0 is synonymous with good design and good programming.
Posted by Jacob levy on September 17, 2006 at 9:26 am
Classic Dave. Picking on someone’s idiosyncratic silly list of web2.0 companies to show how all of web2.0 is silly. Who ever said that that list represents web2.0 work? This is an unfair panning of the whole because of a small small part.
Anyways I agree with you, web2.0 is silly, because it was there all along and people were just asleep at the wheel not noticing the capabilities that were there already. I mean, being able to do server-browser asynch communication dates back to .. oh, 1999 maybe?
Posted by Dave Winer on September 17, 2006 at 9:34 am
Hey Jacob that display of graphics very much represents what Web 2.0 is.
Got a nice logo? You get VC, and you’re in the club. You get to pay $5000 to go to a conference, and you can run ads on TechLunch.
This time the public ain’t buying, no one is IPO’ing. But you’ll still hear a thud when it’s all crashed. I don’t think the tech industry will get up after this KO though.
And your post is Classic Jacob Levy angst. 🙂
Posted by Dave Winer on September 17, 2006 at 9:37 am
Justin, everyone knows why Microsoft sucks.
The old cutting off their air supply thing.
And, whygooglesucks.com was available.
whymicrosoftsucks.com wasn’t. 🙂
PS: I also got whyapplesucks.com.
Posted by Jacob levy on September 17, 2006 at 10:32 am
LOL @Dave 🙂 You won’t ever forgive me for abandoning Jacob’s Angst in the early days of blogging. Who knows, I might by now have a blog empire like Om Malik if not for my sloth and lazyness 🙂
Posted by David Patty on September 17, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Thanks for sharing the pictures of the “How Berkeley Can You Be” parade. Love the Bug!