[imiric]

Right. His answer effectively dismisses the question on the basis of it being invalid, or even dumb. And points out the larger philosophy that customer experience trumps technology.

It's a classy way to come out on top of an argument, but a) it doesn't work in all situations, and b) not everyone can think on their feet in that way in front of an audience.

It's an admirable trait of charismatic people, but it's also abused to manipulate the conversation to gain an upper hand. Typically used by politicians and lawyers.

[Tsiklon]

Is Jobs' answer technically a non-sequitur rebuttal to a technical question? Only that charisma has "carried the motion" through

[BHSPitMonkey]

But it wasn't a sincere question; It was a statement disguised as a question in order to fit the format of the live Q&A, and the statement was "I think discontinuing OpenDoc makes you dumb and I want to humiliate you publicly for it".

[pxc]

> "I think discontinuing OpenDoc makes you dumb and I want to humiliate you publicly for it"

Wasn't it more like 'by discontinuing OpenDoc, you're throwing good work that I and others poured ourselves into for years, and reveal that your agreements to support it were made in bad faith. I'm calling you out for abandoning our team, you bastard'?

imo the sentiment is clearly one of indignation and hurt at perceived betrayal and dishonesty, not really intellectual superiority