Re:Apple's Minimum Viable Product
by alyx on Friday June 22, 2012 @02:19PM
(#4147989)
"To be fair" implies there is unfairness.
I'd like to better understand who's being shortchanged fairness here. Is it Apple or is it Steve Jobs? In either case, I think protecting the extremely successful, seems like a waste of (argument) energy.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apple's Minimum Viable Product
by cleverjake on Friday June 22, 2012 @02:29PM
(#4148040)
Im not really protecting anyone. The author puts forth the idea of Apple having a minimum viable product (just a board), and shipping it because they were once young and scrappy. I counter, saying this was simply par for the course at the time. I don't think he has a valid point. 'To be fair' is being used in more of a colloquialistic sense - a sort of introduction to a counter point.