[viscanti]

I think the difference is between things that work don't need to be changed, just for the sake of change. Things that are broken, or suffer from poor usability should change. Not everything needs to change, but I think it's fair to want broken things to change without advocating that everything change just because.

[HelloMcFly]

But that's so short-sighted! You know what worked? The Motorola RAZR. But then the iPhone came out and it was a radical change and, even though many said at the time "I just need to make calls and text", it set the standard.

If your mentality is always "if it ain't broke don't fix it" then you're probably going to get disrupted. Windows 7 wasn't broke, but the future of the desktop environment looks like it might be, so Microsoft is trying to merge desktop and mobile. It may not work, but you must at least somewhat sympathize with their need to try.

[CamperBob2]

Metro is no iPhone.

[HelloMcFly]

No, it doesn't need to be in order for the illustration to be apt. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" is a mentality asking for disruption.

[viscanti]

The argument isn't "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". It's that not all change is necessary (or even good). If something is clearly broken, by all means fix it. If it's not, then things get more complicated. Maybe a change is still in order (but maybe it's broken in a non-obvious way, like the Razr in a smart-phone world). The idea that change is always good and always a sign of progress is absolutely false.