The Mouse Roars
Not long ago on Apple Matters, one of their astute (or maybe lucky) writers suggested Apple needed not a two-button mouse, but a multi-button mouse. The article was What OS X could learn from Windows.
In an article that posed five other suggestions for Apple, that suggestion generated the most controversy and comment. Not the multi-button mind you, but the suggestion Apple desert the single-button mouse that had for 20 years, been an icon of what it meant to be a Mac user. Kind of like a rallying flag. You could just imagine the battle flag of the Mac legions bearing, not a Mac, but a one button mouse. In this simple device, were all the philosophies of Macdom - simplicity, ease of use, being different, being innovative, defiance.
And now, in one fell swoop, Apple have reset the playing field. They’ve switched decks on us again. We have to change another argument about why we are Mac users. We are getting to the point where the only difference will be the OS - and I’m just fine with that.
A Mighty Mouse
Here’s how Apple broke the news to world and shattered another myth:
With up to four programmable buttons, Mighty Mouse makes it easy to access key features of Tiger with the side buttons and Scroll Ball providing quick, one-click access to Spotlight, Dashboard and Exposé.
Sound familiar? Here’s what was in that article:
3) A multi button mouse. And you thought I’d say two. Why stop at two? Especially with things like Exposé, Dashboard and Spotlight. They’re just crying out for single click activation from a mouse.
That article was written with no prior knowledge of Apple’s plans, including a forgotten rumor on Apple Insider in March, which I didn’t turn up until several days after my article was released.
And now, much sooner than expected Apple has, as desired by me and a few others, given us a multi-button mouse to access things like Spotlight, Dashboard and Exposé from a single click.
There were many, many responses to that article - mostly about the mouse. Several people posting comments indicated they did not want button-bloat. A few others said a mouse that worked like a single or multi-button mouse would be good. Maybe Apple has made both of these groups happy as this mouse can be one, two, three or four button. Whatever takes you fancy. But I reckon they’ll start using the other buttons before long.
Several though voiced very strong concerns about ergonomics and software ease of use being compromised - suggesting developers could become lazy. I trust this won’t happen - especially as developers have had context menus for years.
It’s interesting to note, that the side buttons on Apple’s single button mouse have always been there - I’ve tried pressing them many times to no avail. How long have Apple been planning this? Have they planned this from the beginning of the redesigned one-button mouse - like the Intel switch which was planned for from the beginnings of OS X?
And it upholds the ideals of simplicity, ease of use, being different, being innovative - whilst defiantly challenging the PC world to do better.
The Mighty Mouse, although the name doesn’t grab me, certainly grabs me on looks. The Apple designers at their best yet again. And it’s got a scroll wheel that I wanted too! I want one!
What’s it mean?
This isn’t a chance to gloat. Sitting alone in a dimly lit room, there’s no one here to pat my back and say “Good onya, mate!” But that’s cool - since there’s still another five requests on that list that could become egg on my face.
Rather, this is a chance to take stock of Apple. Who are Apple, 2005? How many “nevers” have been tossed aside in the last six months alone? An x86 Mac; A flash based iPod; A cheap Mac; A multi-button Mouse. Hell’s looking decidedly cold. What’s next? iPod’s that play videos are strongly rumored. And what after that? OS X licensed to Dell? The Apple keyboard modifier keys changed to match Windows’? This is a new Apple that is letting go of the past when it sees it doesn’t need to hold onto it. This is an Apple that is prepared to change. This is an Apple that really does want a much larger slice of the PC market. This is an Apple of who you really should never say never.
This Apple is about making great products that really are accessible to everyone. That is the key. That is Apple 2005.
I guess I can take my flame-proof vest off now.
Thanks Steve, I owe you a beer.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Yes, we all have our reasons. I just want to make sure that I understand YOUR “rule”: It’s okay and justified for YOU to call ANYONE ELSE names. It’s NOT okay for anyone to call YOU names. Is that about right?
I never said or implied that, but you already know that.
Unfortunately for you, I don’t live by that rule. Unlike you, I try to apply the SAME rules to myself that I apply to others.
No you don’t. You keep throwing out the word “zealot” while denying that you’re as big a zealot as those about whom you complain.
Being arrogant myself, for example, I wouldn’t call James “arrogant” because to do so would be just like your INSANE HYPOCRISY of being able to call me names while getting all offended at me calling you names.
It took me 15 days to accept that you’re a troll and to call you one. That’s the same as you calling me a whole slew of names and making baseless accusations from the beginning? Whatever.
I never said or implied that, but you already know that.
Never implied it? Then explain to me the rule that says it’s okay for you to call me an immature troll and a zealot, because obviously you think it is, but not for me to call you a Mac zealot, because obviously you think it isn’t.
It took me 15 days to accept that you’re a troll and to call you one.
So if I had waited 15 days to call you a zealot, that would be okay? Is that the rule? What if I can figure things out faster than you, do I still have to wait 15 days?
Obviously this is very important to you, so I want to make sure we get this straight. At what point can I call you names the way you call me names without you whining about it?
Ok, so what about you purposefully taking people’s comment out of context or mis-quoting them to support your “debate points”?
How does that add to the discourse? I’ve seen you do it in every thread here. That’s why you’ve been labelled a troll. You purposefully twist other’s words in order to inflame the debate.
It’s no wonder people view your comments with little regard. Every time you do that, any valid point you may have had gets buried in the offal surrounding it.
If you look back at the threads, it appears no one called you a name until you insulted them (or someone else they were defending) first.
Explain why you labeled me a zealot after my initial post. That’s the key and you’re the only person with the answer.
First things first before you dodge the subject, VB. What about Mac users who call Windows users the names I mentioned? And yes, as much as I’d love to flatter myself, they’ve done so LONG before I came here and without it being a response to my using the word “zealot.”
How many times have you rebuked them for it? None? Zero? Nada?
So I hope you’ll pardon me if I file your complaints under my “Can dish it out but can’t take it” file next to my “one standard for Macs and another for Windows” file.
<It’s no wonder people view your comments with little regard.</i>
I don’t expect the zealots to like what I have to say. That’s a given. Mac zealots are nothing if not predictable.
But here’s what the head publisher of this site, Hadley Stern, has to say about it:
And, as the publisher of this site I have to say his comments are almost always great. In-depth and well-thought out. And his viewpoint is consistent. Yes the Mac rules, but it isn’t the be all and end of of computing. Yes Apple is a great company, but not every product they put out is a home-run. Rather than a troll I would call beeblebox a critic. And I welcome his viewpoint to Apple Matters.
Explain why you labeled me a zealot after my initial post.
Arguments that justify the single-button mouse are UNIQUELY Mac-centric (for obvious reasons) and only ever made by Macophiles because only a Macophile would bother. And your argument in particular actually went beyond even what the typical Mac defender uses to justify the single-button mouse.
My comment about “Mac fanatics” was meant generally about people who use that argument and that still stands. But while subsequent comments sometimes dissuade me from applying the “Mac zealot” label to particular users, yours have not.
Btw, I and others have gotten called “trolls” after a single comment before. Again, none of this unique to me but you two have certainly never rushed to defend those guys.
Arguments that justify the single-button mouse are UNIQUELY Mac-centric (for obvious reasons) and only ever made by Macophiles because only a Macophile would bother. And your argument in particular actually went beyond even what the typical Mac defender uses to justify the single-button mouse.
My argument was atypical of Mac defenders, yet that’s what makes you think I’m a typical “Mac zealot”? It never crossed your mind that I said the one-button mouse is better ergonomically because it actually feels better to me? Really?
But while subsequent comments sometimes dissuade me from applying the “Mac zealot” label to particular users, yours have not.
Why not? You know I support other people using two-button mice if they choose (and I said that before Mighty Mouse). You know I own a two-button mouse. You know I think Mighty Mouse is slightly overpriced. You know I missed Alt-Tab switching before it was implemented in OS X. You know I don’t like OS 9’s ridiculous instability. You’re acting like some kind of modern-day Don Quixote, inventing “Mac zealot” windmills so you can tilt your sword at them.
Btw, I and others have gotten called “trolls” after a single comment before. Again, none of this unique to me but you two have certainly never rushed to defend those guys.
I’m talking to you. You disrespected me. If you feel others are doing the same to you, let them know. I haven’t attacked anyone’s opinion on this site. I’ve tried to be as respectful as I can. The same doesn’t hold true for you and that’s what’s disturbing.
I haven’t attacked anyone’s opinion on this site.
I guess “immature 14-year-old troll” is a term of endearment where you’re from.
The same doesn’t hold true for you and that’s what’s disturbing.
I’ve called you a zealot. Boo. Effin. Hoo. If you’re bent out of shape over THAT, then I’m surprised you’re able to leave your house in the morning.
And a word to you and VB both about your hypocritical double-standard over name-calling.
The MATURE response to me pointing out how you and other Mac users have called me and other Windows users names is to say, “You’re right and that was low of me. I will stop immediately and I would appreciate you doing the same.”
The IMMATURE response is you and VD defending YOUR name-calling with “But you started it!” and “Oh yeah? Well…well…you’re the zealot…and a troll…and…and…a 14 year old…so take that!...Nya!”
So you can pretend you’re on some moral highground but you can’t even see it from where you are. You’re right down here in the gutter with me.
So NYA!
Chris Howard…. I missed the forum for a day or so but I too have noticed a lot of “jumping” across the screen for no apparent reason, in fact I was almost going to call the Apple store and see if they had got another shipment of these in and exchange mine. This is NOT “an optical mouse thing” as I’ve been using optical mice for several years now, there’s just something wrong here. It’s bad enough on the desktop, but when I’m in Battlefield 1942 and consistently firing round after round at a cloud in the sky it really gets irritating.
I guess “immature 14-year-old troll” is a term of endearment where you’re from.
You misquoted me. Anyway, I wasn’t attacking your opinion; I was attacking your actions, which you’ve been hypocritically justifying for a while now. To be explicitly clear, I haven’t attacked anyone’s opinion of computing/technology. I’ve questioned your opinion of me because it doesn’t seem to be based on anything substantial.
BTW, I guess I should’ve known you’d skip the important parts of my last post. You know why I think you’re a troll, but you still haven’t explained why you think I’m a zealot. Why repeat your opinion over and over again if you aren’t going to explain how you formed it?
Anyway, I wasn’t attacking your opinion; I was attacking your actions.
My opinion is that you’re a zealot. That’s what you’re attacking. If by “action” you mean the ACT of calling you a zealot, then that’s like saying I’m attacking the ACT of you zealously defending Apple. That is semantics, and it’s a weak defense for your hypocrisy.
BTW, I guess I should’ve known you’d skip the important parts of my last post.
There were no important parts of your last post. It’s all this ridiculous justification of why it’s okay for you to call me names but not okay for me to call you names. It’s transparent. It’s weak. It’s pathetic.
To be explicitly clear, I haven’t attacked anyone’s opinion of computing/technology. I’ve questioned your opinion of me because it doesn’t seem to be based on anything substantial.
You know why I think you’re a troll, but you still haven’t explained why you think I’m a zealot. Why repeat your opinion over and over again if you aren’t going to explain how you formed it?
To be explicitly clear, I haven’t attacked anyone’s opinion of computing/technology.
So it’s okay to call names as long as it isn’t attacking someone’s opinion of computing/technology?
Honestly, your little “rules” keep changing so much I can’t even keep up anymore.
Don’t you think it would save a LOT of time if you just said that it’s okay for you to call me names but not for me to do it to you, and just leave it at that? Is this whole song and dance where you pretend that this is about principles really necessary?
You know why I think you’re a troll, but you still haven’t explained why you think I’m a zealot.
I explained it earlier in this thread and you even responded to it. I can’t help it if my explanation isn’t good enough, but I doubt ANYTHING I say would be good enough. You keep moving the bar so that whatever happens, you’re justified in calling names but I’m not. And whatever additional explanation I give, you’d just move the bar yet again, so what’s the point?
Arguments that justify the single-button mouse are UNIQUELY Mac-centric (for obvious reasons) and only ever made by Macophiles because only a Macophile would bother. And your argument in particular actually went beyond even what the typical Mac defender uses to justify the single-button mouse.
My argument was atypical of Mac defenders, yet that’s what makes you think I’m a typical “Mac zealot”? It never crossed your mind that I said the one-button mouse is better ergonomically because it actually feels better to me? Really?
But while subsequent comments sometimes dissuade me from applying the “Mac zealot” label to particular users, yours have not.
Why not? You know I support other people using two-button mice if they choose (and I said that before Mighty Mouse). You know I own a two-button mouse. You know I think Mighty Mouse is slightly overpriced. You know I missed Alt-Tab switching before it was implemented in OS X. You know I don’t like OS 9’s ridiculous instability. You’re acting like some kind of modern-day Don Quixote, inventing “Mac zealot” windmills so you can tilt your sword at them.
I explained it earlier in this thread and you even responded to it. I can’t help it if my explanation isn’t good enough, but I doubt ANYTHING I say would be good enough.
Good enough? I just want it to make some kind of sense.