These "literal" nitpicks are exactly what I was addressing in the article. Conceptually, it's more or less the same thing, and was meant as a comparison for what can be "done better". He was making an analogy. When you start saying things like "stretching definition of initial", it's merely semantic differences. This is also confirmed by something else Brendan said:
I wish I had the clearance to announce more details now, but soon the EOS community will see how resources can be leveraged to drive real innovation and value.
As for the "vaporware" comparison, and notwithstanding the progress I've witnessed on the EOS github, the vaporware "analogy" could be extended to bitcoin as well. I mean, what is the community really getting for all that money, except for a super expensive way to get things done that should cost a fraction of the price? Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for my "too low fee" bitcoin transaction to go through, back from 2015! I guess at this point it's disappeared from the network and considered an "undesirable transaction".
No one denies the revolutionary impact of bitcoin. But that doesn't mean the tech and the politics couldn't use a dramatic overhaul either. Ford's Model T, or IBM's first PC were also "revolutionary". But at some point it doesn't hurt to rethink everything from the ground up, and devise a fully updated model reflecting updated technical capabilities and usage cases that hadn't even yet been conceived back in 2008. It has gotten me thinking, however, that an IBM-PC-iPhone could be kind of cool, especially if I can lug it behind me in the trunk of my car!
EOS has a lot to offer, there's zero reason to make completely wild comparisons like this for what I can only imagine as media attention.
"Wild comparisons" are rather subjective. Some might say that "EOS has a lot to offer" is a "wild comparison". Anyway, how does anyone come to such conclusions, other than by critically analyzing and comparing what "already is"?
You do not have to find equivalents in other chains - they ARE different. Focus on advantages and disadvantages and what design choices were made.
And how do you focus on the advantages and disadvantages without also comparing what is similar, and what can be done better? If bitcoin works for you, stick with it. If not, well, consider other options, or use both. But personally, I appreciate people who'd rather just say what they think, without worrying about intruding into someone's semantic "safe space".
This is similar to what I recently dealt with in the bitshares community when I gave attention to a problem I deemed rather important. I even spent dozens more hours of my own time developing a potential "fix" for it. If my code passes a thorough peer-review and is eventually accepted, I believe the whole ecosystem, from bitshares, to STEEMIT, and possibly even EOS will benefit in the long-run. Of course, it did seem at first some would prefer to bury their heads and "leave well enough alone". Some of us, however, may feel that's simply just not quite "good enough"...