Insanely Great

A term SteveJobs used when referring to the development of the first Macintosh computer.

The idea is, basically, you don't want a pretty good product, or even just a great product: you want to make something that's insanely great, something that will inspire people to rave about it, something that will improve their lives in surprising ways.

I thought that was the Lisa. Then reality reared its ugly head, and they had to yank memory, etc.

Contrast to what IBM was aiming for at the time: inanely grey-flannel.

I kind of wish the Linux crowd had more developers aiming for insanely great, rather than making little tweaks to the OS or churning out more clones of sad old commercial software. -- GeorgePaci

But the sad fact is that most InsanelyGreat projects fail, because they're TooRadical? (the limiting case is LetsBlowUpTheUniverse). Insanely great projects usually require significant learning investment, and most people don't like learning. They'll only pick up a new product if the immediate payoff is worth the perceived investment of adopting it. That's why CommonLisp, SmallTalk, BeOs, PlanNine etc. have all failed.

I suspect the Linux community's success is because they stick to little tweaks to the OS and clones of commercial software. This gives developers an immediate reward for participating, instead of having to wait for the big rollout that might or might not be a success. It keeps the system relatively stable, so early adopters don't have to worry that a LetsBlowUpTheUniverse innovation will blow up their computer. And it keeps the UI familiar, first for sysadmins (UNIX clone) and now for desktop users (Windows clone). Linux finally realized that WorseIsBetter.

Personally, I think the road to success is to write an insanely great piece of software that looks inanely mediocre enough to be familiar. Let the advanced users discover its insane greatness on their own; the UnwashedMasses will be able to use it just like every other tool they've ever used. Python and Ruby are to some extent examples of this; they look like ordinary UNIX scripting languages, but they're almost as powerful as Lisp and SmallTalk. -- JonathanTang

Try this: My imp got an AppleIpod. I would never have put up with them (my notebook carries my tunes fine, thank you), but her peer group is in the target demographic for their advertising.

So I install the iTunes software, and look for a button "upload to iPod".

Then I try to drag MP3s from their folder to the iTunes GUI. Whose folder?

Then I google for how to copy files to ipod, and get dozens of pages about copying files from the iPod to a PC.

I'm having trouble detecting the "great" part in "InsanelyGreat" here, folks... --PhlIp

First off, your problem can be cured by attending a SteveJobs presentation in person. His RealityDistortionField will re-align your view of such things.

Secondly, prior to that therapy, you misunderstand the nature of InsanelyGreat. It only sometimes means "for the Apple customer". In this case, it's InsanelyGreat that he sold 30 million of them, including to people like you who don't see the need. Impressive, eh? ;-)

I prostrate myself in honor of such insane greatness. --PhlIp

LOL. Thank you. :-) -- Doug

Many Apple product features are designed to be more intuitive to the average person than the intelligencia. Next time, try hitting your head with a rock or imbibing your alcoholic beverage of choice to get your intelligence back down to the median before using the Apple software. (In this case, simply plugging in the FireWire/USB cable should have synced the iPod to your iTunes library. Drag songs to the library, not the iPod. There might be an iPod pref to break this correspondance.) -- IanOsgood

Well, here's what our resident usability guru intuited. At launch time iTunes didn't have its iPod icon. So guess what I did!

After the VulcanNervePinch?, the icon shows up, and the system asks if I want to erase the iPod account linked to my daughter's desktop account, and synchronize to mine. This is because, even on one 'puter, iPod is beholden to the RecordingIndustryAssociationOfAmerica?, so no matter how daddy steals the MP3s (let me count the ways) iPod wants to hassle me if it suspects I might be sharing them.

And I explained to the little monkey I could have got her a USB dongle for $30 that stores tunes in a SolidState? file system and plays them from a tiny user interface. She's like, "Can it do PodCasts?" --PhlIp

Right. Apple must be a big proponent of OnceAndOnlyOnce: Only One main computer, Only One iPod, Only One person allowed to listen to the music One bought from the One iTunes music store, One button mouse, One UI guideline (at a time), etc...

Maybe she'd be satisfied with the insanely DoSimpleThings player if you got her the White iPod Earphones (TM) (R) fashion accessory.

See also ReachableUtopia (its not enough to envision something InsanelyGreat, but one also needs a way there; if there is no way, then WorseIsBetter)

JanuaryZeroSix