People are surprised Apple became largest company in the world. They don't do this shit. They don't talk about "synergizing between strategic vendors for multi-platform consideration interests". They make magical devices that allow you to listen to music.

Since when was apple the largest company in the world? They aren't in the top 50 by revenue, profit, or employees. It's got a high market cap, but it's PE ratio is a lot worse. It's "bigger" in that people give it more money to do about half as much with.

The only features that matter are those that a product needs. Everything else is, by definition, bloat. You don't put 6 extra wheels on a car because they are "great features". A car needs four (4) wheels. No more, no less.

actually 3 are enough, and people can drive with stuff that's 2 or 1 wheel, too. and don't let us talk about cars and "only what's needed". why do SUV exist, then, again?

[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1299853509' post='4784387']
The only features that matter are those that a product needs. Everything else is, by definition, bloat. You don't put 6 extra wheels on a car because they are "great features". A car needs four (4) wheels. No more, no less.

actually 3 are enough, and people can drive with stuff that's 2 or 1 wheel, too. and don't let us talk about cars and "only what's needed".[/quote]
In context of OP's complaint - new feature rich frameworks are the equivalent of SUV. They offer minor cosmetic improvements with not additional value no served identically by equivalent tools.
But, in OP's example, the SUV comes with only 3 wheels. It still has the cup holder, warmed leather seats, quad playstations, 500W audio system - but only 3 wheels. Apparently, just because.

why do SUV exist, then, again?[/quote]
Because there was no more need for improvements, so marketing invented a need.

Anyone who actually *needs* an SUV buys a Hilux. The actual rugged vehicle.

It's "bigger" in that people give it more money to do about half as much with.[/quote]
The sole purpose of existence and in cases of publicly traded companies a legal requirement of an incorporated company is to maximize profits. Everything else is secondary.

So yes, it's about making products/offering services that people pay for.

as said, 3 wheels would have been enough

but yeah, i don't particularly like silverlight myself. it's kinda SUVvy for me, indeed.

but yeah, i don't particularly like silverlight myself. it's kinda SUVvy for me, indeed.

Silverlight is competing in its own category. Its doing itself no favors by making mistakes like this.

It's about baseline. If trying to compete, first you absolutely need all expected functionality. At that point, your product is worth exactly zero. It's a commodity. Features that come on top of that are what adds value.

When it comes to details like this, Microsoft went downhill during Vista and 7 era. Windows Explorer is a usability disaster, I've started preferring command prompt. And Windows is very far from an OS that could afford to hide the file system.


But a better question for the problem at hand - why is there a need for Save As dialog? Why isn't the application presenting user's cloud-/intra-/VPN-based repository via commonly accepted and standard web interface? Why does application expose something so quaint and arcane as Files and File system?

This was the major issue I was trying to expose. World has moved beyond files, yet many developers will be forced to deal with patching around WPF Latest.Greatest.4.5.Enterprise.Beta technology stack.

I like the current explorer very much, thank you. but i think the "save as" question is not for silverlight (it should have that), but for the OP. does HIS APP need it.

You realize Silverlight is not a Windows technology right? There are multi-platform considerations. If you're only interested in the Windows platform, you might take a look at XBAP or WPF.

Silverlight multiplatform? BWAHAHAHAHA. That's a good joke.

It's "bigger" in that people give it more money to do about half as much with.

The sole purpose of existence and in cases of publicly traded companies a legal requirement of an incorporated company is to maximize profits. Everything else is secondary.

So yes, it's about making products/offering services that people pay for.
[/quote]

So then you agree that apple is not the biggest company in the world as it is not in the top 50 for profit earned, not in the top 50 for revenue earned, and nowhere near the top 50 for profit earned/share?

So then you agree that apple is not the biggest company in the world as it is not in the top 50 for profit earned, not in the top 50 for revenue earned, and nowhere near the top 50 for profit earned/share?

Yes, it's only second biggest.

It's also utterly irrelevant with regard to the example I made.

Or perhaps very relevant. The reason they got to be so big in just a couple of years is because everyone else was and still is circlejerking around their precious technology stacks, carefully copywritten semantics and TLAs, they had the guts to take a step back and look at what actually matters to people.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1299874622' post='4784526']
So then you agree that apple is not the biggest company in the world as it is not in the top 50 for profit earned, not in the top 50 for revenue earned, and nowhere near the top 50 for profit earned/share?

Yes, it's only second biggest.
[/quote]
I am aware that they have a high market cap. My comment is that their high market cap isn't really representative of how big a company they are. They have lower revenues, profits, employees, and by extension a worse PE ratio than a lot of companies, which is why I said, "It's bigger in that people give it more money to do less with."