Hacker News Reader

Comment by Goladus | Hacker News Reader

The problem with the whole thing is that computers are not cars. Cars do one thing: get from a to b. Whether "getting from a to b" is an experience to be enjoyed or endured is a matter of preference, but ultimately the car still serves a single purpose.

The single purpose served by a computer is so abstract that it's not even worth mentioning here. Practically, computers serve hundreds of different purposes, and that is why the analogy fails.

View on HN

I can tell that you aren't into cars. People that are into cars really get a lot more than the A to B utility. they identify with cars. They drive them for the sake of driving. They race. They accessorize. They like the way driving their car makes them feel. I'm not a car guy myself, so I can't elaborate, however, I know some of these people, and they think computers are mostly "single purpose". It is all about perspective.

You have to be an enthusiast to really get the difference, though. That's not true with computers, and is the whole point. Take enthusiasts out of the picture entirely, and computers still have a variety of uses, cars have essentially one, or maybe two if you live in it.

I wonder which has more enthusiasts. :)

Regardless, I think the analogy still makes sense.

It makes sense as an analogy but it's not valid evidence supporting the argument.

The argument is that usability matters more than capability and that's why the iPad will ultimately win the mainstream. In mainstream use, computers simply have more diverse capability than cars.

(note that this is NOT the case with mobile phones-- while mobile phones have diverse capability and people use them for lots of different things, if all you could do was make calls, send text, email, use GPS and do basic web browsing people would still buy them)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com