Spreading the Love


You may think that I only talk up Apple and rip on Microsoft in the privacy of my own domain name.  Dear reader‚ welcome to the anti-social.  I feel I have to periodically dress down the dreck that pollutes most tech site comment sections.  I’d like to share a few of my favorites:

Lifehacker’s 7/29/09 Panty Knot over Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice App:

LOL.  And I always thought LH had some kind of screening process for their comments.  I guess when the premise is as poorly thought-out as this‚ all the rocks turn over.

The exclusive deal between Apple and AT&T brought the iPhone into the world.  AT&T got a lock on a specified revenue model for 5 years and Apple got unrestricted authority on the design‚ engineering and marketing of the product.  When an app infringes on one of the assumptions of the revenue model‚ the carrier has a right to bitch.  And as far as this app rejection “roulette” metaphor goes‚ please.  There are over 65‚000 apps in the store.  Give me 10 that have been arbitrarily bounced (and not later re-instated) without just cause.

I’ve really come to expect a little more in the way of perspective on this site.  Maybe you’ve been huffing Gizmodo’s tailpipe a little too long?

Motley Fool’s 7/28/09 Fomenting on the Growing Apple Monopoly

Wow. Did I mistakenly clickthrough to thestreet.com?

Apple benefits from having the smartphone market entered by a worthy competitor to siphon market share from RIM and WinMo. Apple does not benefit from companies that leech functionality from their software without it being properly licensed‚ the same way it won’t be allowing/tacitly supporting this functionality for Blackberries and HTC Fuzes.

Despite the inflammatory headline‚ you finally do point out the real cause of Google Voice being pulled: it was AT&T’s decision. Plain and simple. Implying that this is AT&T having Apple act in its monopolistic interests is irresponsible to put in print. Their deal is based on a revenue model for calls and texts. Do you really think Apple has a vote‚ or even veto power in this regard? It wouldn’t surprise me if your answer was “no” (editors note: obv‚ this should be “yes”.  TMA is not above comment blurt. *sigh*)‚ given the level of knowledge that underlies this article in general.

Maybe you should peruse some of your idol’s greatest Apple foments if you desire to create the desired buzz. I’d rate your efforts at inflammatory journalism maybe 6th grade‚ tops.

PC World’s Bill Snyder 1/19/2010 bashing of the iTablet as useless to business – more than a week before it’s even announced

So I have to sign up for at least one newsletter from PC World (it won’t let me register until I choose one) in order to leave a comment about how terrible this article is? This site is a joke on at least 3 levels:

1. The “substance” of your rant is based on a product THAT HASN’T BEEN ANNOUNCED. From a standpoint of any kind of journalistic integrity: really? I mean, seriously: really?

2. Your ridiculous diatribe is the most nauseating display of hit-whoring I think I’ve ever seen. Smell that rotting stench hanging in the air? That’s your publication’s credibility. In fact, I’d like to congratulate you on officially knocking down the entire craft of tech blogging. Kudos!

3. You make people subscribe to one of your toilet-wipe publications for the privilege of being able to tell you how awful your story is (rest assured, the place in gmail’s “spam” folder has already been carpeted in anticipation of your arrival). Does it get any worse?

You epitomize everything wrong with the expression of an opinion on the internet. It’s based on nothing, predates an announcement guaranteed to get you eyeballs and requires anyone desiring to point out your obvious lack of journalistic skill or ethics to infect themselves with your e-wares. This should disgust everyone reading it.

/.’s 1/26/10 discussion of the article “Apple Paradox: Closed Culture, Free-Thinking Fans”, which apparently finds a paradox between Apple’s tight information culture and the people who use their products:

“Apple is a “Master’s Workshop” set up in the spirit of some of the world’s great architectural firms. There is a visionary who leads and provides the Passion that allows others in their roles to feel like they’re doing the Lord’s work. There are very capable lieutenants, but the vision of the master rules the day. The master knows he’s beholden to the effort of his lieutenants, and makes sure they are motivated by the Passion and well-compensated for their effort.

Great things aren’t made by committee, at least not in the crowdsourced sense. When you make your money providing a consistently great user experience, more is not better. Again, this goes back to the “Master’s Workshop” structure. Great architecture is not made via the blended vision of 25 individuals; it was one person’s vision, well-executed by a team of 25.

The reason for the one voice is also strategic. Fewer leaks = more hype. You’ll notice the clamor for the Apple Tablet started over a year ago, and none of it came from Apple. It still doesn’t, and we’re a day from the likely announcement of the device. Unlike some companies who announce products with world-altering features and nebulous shipping dates, Apple doesn’t announce until the vision of the product is perfect – and only then on their terms.

So people can whine about Apple’s closed nature if they want. The company’s restricted access and the use of Apple’s products by creative, free-thinking individuals have nothing to do with each other. This is perhaps ironic in only the most cursory definition of the word. In order for them to create the products they want to create, on their schedule, this level of control is not just desirable, it’s essential. Great products are visions, not zoo exhibits, regardless of how butthurt the people who don’t have access to the vision feel about their roles outside the process.”

5/10/10 – Computerworld blogger and future Douchebag’s Row alumnus Preston Gralla “Android Whips the iPhone in 2010 sales: Will Apple Celebrate?” where Preston brags about Android phone sales figures for the 231098 different phones it offers across all carriers beating out the iPhone, then says it’s a good thing because the speculated on but non-existent anti-trust investigation into Apple’s iPhone becomes less compelling  when Apple has less market share.

Subj: WinMo Share Plummets for Millionth Consecutive Quarter; Will Microsoft Kill Itself?

Aside from the click-bait headline, you did get one part of the headline right: Apple is celebrating. Android has spawned a bunch of “buy-one, get-ones” the quarter before everyone is waiting for Apple’s next phone. Soooo…off 7% in volume a month before a major device release – all with margins that smash any of Android’s phones.

There’s your celebration.

And the theory that an anti-trust action against Apple is lessened by this quarter’s results is predicated on it happening at all, which is hilarious.

 Posted by at 10:02 am

Leave a Reply

  • RSS
  • Twitter
%d bloggers like this: