The big story was tucked away towards the end of the Keynote, underlining a shift of which the iPhone is only a part. Apple Computer, Inc became Apple, Inc.

I don’t know how I feel about this; my heart and mind are pulled in two different directions. One the one hand, I have always been wary of iPods and the whole “digital lifestyle” thing. It seems instinctively an enormous distraction from what is really important about Apple (for me)–innovative, beautiful computers that are simply streets ahead of anything else on offer.

So, as you can imagine, I was already feeling grumpy that there was nothing about Leopard or new computer hardware or anything that I fondly imagine to be Apple’s core business in the Keynote. Then this came up, feeding all my worst fears.

On the other hand, I understand the argument that iPods, TV and iPhones are all good for Apple’s bottom line, garner it extra market share and clout and end up benefiting the part of Apple’s product line that I really care about. A kind of “trickle up” effect.

How did you feel when you saw this?

Image nicked from Engadget without permission but with thanks

I was speaking to a couple of Apple gurus via iChat today who both told me not to worry so much. The computer side of the business is ticking along nicely, the engineers are churning out the same amount of great software at the same rate and so forth. Just because Steve Jobs is so energised by the digital gadgets doesn’t mean that he is not interested in hard-core computing.

I know they must be right. But it’s so hard not to worry… apple, computers, apple inc, name change, digital lifestyle, steve jobsSimilar Posts:

• The strange history of IT company names
• Steve Jobs shows off NeXTSTEP, NeXTMail
• Know yourself: Geek or nerd?
• Nostalgia
• What’s wrong with Apple’s Enterprise Strategy

If you are reading this post on Hawk Wings, you are one or the other.

A blog about a niche email client within a niche OS within the niche market of computing (a niche of a niche of a niche) pretty well meets the criteria of obsession and narrow focus that has defined these two words.

A post on progressive: what the blog? explores the semantics of geeks and nerds.

After pointing out that dictionary definitions confuse the two, the writer attempts a distinction:

A geek has a narrower interest span than a nerd. A geek is extremely good at one thing and also knows a bit more than average about many other interests he or she might have. A geek is also more outgoing and more social than nerds. A geek is more ’self oriented’ while a nerd is ‘interest oriented’. A geek may give up or switch to some other interest if thre are benifits in it, but a nerd will not – if he did he would fall under the geek definition.

Australia must follow the UK on this, I think, where the usage differs. As a commentator on the progressive post points out, people in the UK ‘tend to use “geek” to mean “one who has keen interest in computers, telephony, science fiction etc” and “nerd” to mean “a geek too far”‘.

That seems to fit. Geeks can at least see normality in the middle distance, whilst for nerds it is already lost over the horizon.

It’s a better distinction than my first thought: Steve Jobs is a geek, but Bill Gates is a nerd. And than my second: Geeks are GUI (Mail.app, Thunderbird) and nerds are command line (mutt, pine). Life is more complicated than that.

[Via the excellent Daring Fireball Linked List ]nerds, geeks, stigma, tribalism, semantics, obsession, niche interests, computers, Steve jobs, bill gatesSimilar Posts:

• The strange history of IT company names
• Steve Jobs shows off NeXTSTEP, NeXTMail
• Farewell, Apple Computer, Inc
• Apple Mail Team engineer who blogs!
• Vanity: Hawk Wings in Aussie Top Five