Monday, December 30, 1996 by Dave Winer.
Today is the first Monday of the rest of 1996. It's also the last! Hey, that's interesting. Maybe.
I'm playing with website tools, trying to ignore the apparent demise of the Macintosh, pretending that I know that Apple couldn't possibly be saying what they appear to be saying.
I think they want me to read the tea-leaves, to not drink the tea.
I imagine a conversation with Gil Amelio, the chairman of Apple, that goes something like this.
Dave: Gil, what do you want us to do?
Gil: I want you to continue to develop the very best software you know how to make.
Dave: For what platform?
Gil: For the Macintosh, of course!
No such conversation has taken place. In fact, the last words I heard from Amelio said the opposite (to me at least).
I watch www.apple.com for a clear statement to the contrary, but it hasn't shown up yet.
Following a link from Apple's home page at www.apple.com...
I find this page premature. I think the people who are gushing over the deal haven't gotten the facts yet. The only reasonable response at this time is to say we're waiting for word from Apple. And it's still puzzling that we haven't heard a strong vote of confidence for the platform from the platform vendor.
It's a time of great rumors. Amelio, Jobs and Sculley were spotted drinking coffee in Palo Alto. We wonder what Sculley could have to sell Amelio that an Apple CEO would be interested in. Wonder, wonder, that's what we keep doing!
I watched the disassembling of Ashton-Tate in the late eighties from a distance, but I learned from it. Disconnections at fifteen levels. Systems that made finger-pointing easy. A ridiculous transition proposal that was rejected by the customers. "One more time!" said the management. "No," said the users.
Almost all the new companies of the eighties went down that road, even Microsoft. The measure of the company is how well it hears the No, and how quickly and effectively it responds.
In the meantime, the flames continue. I've found a somtimes-effective way of dealing with these personal attacks. When someone sends me a rude message I send them back a message acknowledging their rudeness.
I say "You're a very rude person!" It seems to get their attention, a retraction follows, I think because it gives the flamer what he wants -- acknowledgement. It invokes parental wires, reminds him that his words could be judged as reflecting on him, not the person they're aimed at.
It also gives *me* what I want. I've said what I said, they're reading a lot more into it than is fair. The correct closure on such an exchange is to insist that, if the conversation is to continue, that disrespect not be permitted.
If someone invades your space via email or otherwise you might try this out.
Anyway, back to my web work.