|
I dunno why after a person's death everyone has to talk only of their good sides. It's a social convention but it's kinda dumb.
He did a lot of good stuff, and also quite a bit of bad stuff. That's ok by me. Google and Samsung did not comment by saying this is to pay respect to S.Jobs, because they wouldn't know what the reaction would be. Now that the reaction is positive, they might comment on it that way. Otherwise, people would know and start saying "it's in fact because the news would be overshadowed by S.Jobs death, and it would also taint our product launch. It's an extraordinary event, Lets launch later". There's nothing respectful in not launching a product, a week later.
There has been many cool marks of respects instead, all over the worlda and the web, which mean a LOT more and make a LOT more sense than a product launch delay. I know, unpopular opinions gotta be downvoted, and criticism bashed. Heh. That's pretty much against what S.Jobs believed in, ironically. |
But each time, I took a deep breath, and let people have their moment.
I agree with you that he wasn't perfect. But he was a remarkable human being, and I'm ok with a social convention that, at least for a short time after a person's death, focuses on the good parts of his life, and the lessons we can learn from them.
The rest of your comment is speculation on the motives of Samsung and Google. Anyone who says, "this one reason is not the reason, and this other reason is the real one" is wrong. Especially at the level of this kind of product launch that's a cooperation between two such huge companies, the decision is likely mind-bogglingly complex.
And, honestly, I think a product launch decision can actually have a real-world impact on sales, so it's potentially a lot more meaningful decision than tweeting #thankyoustevejobs.
Again, I'm sure the decision is a byzantine one. But the gggp comment appears to be advocating an antagonistic attitude toward the recently dead. That's simply and obviously disrespectful.