I don't understand why American based news companies ( and all Americans in general) don't support Apple.
Why are they wishing to see their own fail, and support foreign businesses as preferable ?
I don't get it either. I think it started when Apple was perceived as expensive and catering to an elite back in the original Mac days. The subsequent rise of the PC with its "for the masses" positioning was an almost Robin Hood phenomenon. The perception that viruses were inevitable and the lack of need for serious tech-support in the Mac "it just works" era, plus the Mac platform being simultaneously viewed as a toy yet not being targeted by developers as a gaming platform meant that few groups of people took Apple seriously - graphics designers and layout specialists. Then came the tech-support undercut. In tech-support circles, the Mac was feared on two levels (1) another system to learn how to support and (2) a much lower associated income (vs virus laden PC with an operating system not geared to steady-state health). The very person you needed to keep your PC going was not about to recommend you get a Mac and (resulting from 1, above) tended to invent reasons why you would be crazy to go that route.
Then Apple invented the smartphone (to call anything that came before "smart" means forgetting how truly bad the Treo was). The iPhone became a must-have device but it was still perceived as expensive. Ad financed phones (android) on cheap hardware became a lure and the former PC crowd was attracted by the myth that the platform was "open" (in reality the platform is only open to the cell providers who load the bloatware/adware and determine what the user cannot delete). The iPhone and subsequently tablet revolution undercut the PC industry which tried to respond with netbooks. We know how that went.
Apple did all this. They did not make many friends in the process.
The larger portion of the disenfranchised industry knows that an end-run is in progress and are fighting, kicking and screaming to recover a position of relevance. The press, for their part, produce articles that support their advertising base or are trying to attract money from those sources. Those sources are not Apple.
Government wants its piece of the pie, either through taxation or punitive action. Judges/DAs who want to advance up the ranks, get on that bandwagon and try to make a name for themselves. Apple has popularly become associated with what is bad in the industry (that's the real confusion of fact) and stories supporting that view attract mindshare, even if those stories seriously distort the facts.
How to combat this? Well one thing's for sure, it's not telling DED to be quiet.
It's amazing how certain publications write something and the rest of the media runs with it. I've seen so many ?Watch D&G stories referencing this NY Slimes story as though Facebook is the deciding factor on whether ?Watch is a success or not. Honestly I'd rather have developers take the time to figure out what's right for the watch than just make an app for it just for the sake of it.
Can someone please tell Dilger that he does not always have to be such a apple matyr? He is great at pointing out where the media is bias- but can never see that his own articles are so far in the opposite side of the spectrum they are hard to trust.
And please- if you need 45 paragraphs to make your point you are just trying to hard.
Filled with the biggest words his thesaurus can conjure, the longest articles on this sites, and the kind of skewed attitude as though he has blinders on makes me skip over his articles.
It's funny when you scroll and skip the Author name. Get less than a paragraph in and say "this is Dilger" scroll up and Yup! Or better yet if it takes you more than 3 flicks to reach the bottom!
Condense- balance- and simplify!
Guess you would be better off skipping the entirety of Daniel's articles, then. For the rest of us, his insight and research provide much needed context that the likes of NYT prefer to ignore.
Nothing new. This type of shoddy, biased article has been standard operating procedure at the NYT and many other major news papers for quite some time and it certainly wasn't limited to phone/electronics coverage.
I remain disappointed with the NYT editorial department who have become seduced by the poorly documented and selective facts in their Pulitzer winning attack on companies who build Apple products. They continue to accept poorly written, weakly documented, and Biased analysis on Apple products, business plans, logic, leadership, etc. This is compounded by an utter lack of critical assessment of past failures in technology prediction and fact checking by the authors "analysts."
My disappointment in the journalistic standards by NYT with regard to Apple makes me wonder are they becoming "link bait" company vs journalists and newspaper with high editorial standards?
Then Apple invented the smartphone (to call anything that came before "smart" means forgetting how truly bad the Treo was). The iPhone became a must-have device but it was still perceived as expensive. Adware financed phones (android) became the solution and the former PC crowd was attracted by the myth that the platform was "open" (in reality the platform is only open to the cell providers who load the bloatware and determine what the user cannot delete). The iPhone and subsequently tablet revolution undercut the PC industry which tried to respond with netbooks. We know how that went.
Apple did all this. They did not make many friends in the process.
It is interesting to think back to 2007 pre-iPhone ...
[VIDEO]
In hindsight, the most significant part of that announcement was the "Breakthrough Internet Communication Device." Steve called this the Internet in your pocket!
Do any of you remember Internet communication on phones before the iPhone? Mail? Messages? Accessing web sites?
Well, there was this esoteric standard (?) called WAP (Web Access Protocol) ... It was a nightmare to program and maintain and was supported (?) differently on every smartPhone ...
When the iPhone was released in 2007, users could access the full web sites (less Flash). It took several years before other smartPhones caught up to offer this capability.
Some (me included) would say the Apple Watch (with its tethered iPhone) offers a much better, cleaner access to the web ... At my convenience -- not at the device's convenience!
I am not an early adopter. I was late with iPods, late with iPhone, late with iPad but I love them all now. Looking forward to iWatch 2 or 4.. I like the even numbers.
Can someone please tell Dilger that he does not always have to be such a apple matyr? He is great at pointing out where the media is bias- but can never see that his own articles are so far in the opposite side of the spectrum they are hard to trust.
And please- if you need 45 paragraphs to make your point you are just trying to hard.
Filled with the biggest words his thesaurus can conjure, the longest articles on this sites, and the kind of skewed attitude as though he has blinders on makes me skip over his articles.
It's funny when you scroll and skip the Author name. Get less than a paragraph in and say "this is Dilger" scroll up and Yup! Or better yet if it takes you more than 3 flicks to reach the bottom!
Condense- balance- and simplify!
With all due respect, it is DED's critical and factually based articles that draw many to this site. His intelligent analysis, and critical insight are what is missing from many, if not most, general news sources, and even many technology focused sites. He is usually spot on with his critical analysis. The lack of this insight and fact based analysis is what is missing from most journalism today, including the once venerable NYT. It is no wonder that newspapers are failing. The NYT in particular has been one of the worst when it comes to Apple. If you don't like intelligent indepth reporting I might suggest picking up a copy of USA Today or the National Enquirer.
With all due respect, it is DED's critical and factually based articles that draw many to this site. His intelligent analysis, and critical insight are what is missing from many, if not most, general news sources, and even many technology focused sites. He is usually spot on with his critical analysis. The lack of this insight and fact based analysis is what is missing from most journalism today, including the once venerable NYT. It is no wonder that newspapers are failing. The NYT in particular has been one of the worst when it comes to Apple. If you don't like intelligent indepth reporting I might suggest picking up a copy of USA Today or the National Enquirer.
I agree, he's clearly arguing Apple's case in most instances, however, it is necessary with all the FUD shoveled constantly from the anti-Apple Corps. I mean, the guy is using facts instead of making wild guesses in order to fabricate a story that does not exist, like the childish NYT crew continues to do (see his evidence on Chen's batting average).
I am not an early adopter. I was late with iPods, late with iPhone, late with iPad but I love them all now. Looking forward to iWatch 2 or 4.. I like the even numbers.
BXC is much worse than just an inept pundit. he is a hack that repeatedly turns speculative tidbits from dubious sources into Apple trashing click bait. if he wrote for some Android/MS/Google fan site his non-existant journalism standards wouldn't matter. but when one is writing for the NYT, one expects unbiased professional work.
To be fair, I read the NYT more than any other newspaper. Their political and international reporting are outstanding, as are their travel, cooking, arts, movies, and education sections.
Their tech reporting is quite poor. I used to like Pogue a lot, but he's gone some place that I never visit any more.
I totally agree. Sadly, tech reporting in all of the mainstream press is poor (though much of the specialist press isn't much better either).
Can someone please tell Dilger that he does not always have to be such a apple matyr? He is great at pointing out where the media is bias- but can never see that his own articles are so far in the opposite side of the spectrum they are hard to trust.
And please- if you need 45 paragraphs to make your point you are just trying to hard.
Filled with the biggest words his thesaurus can conjure, the longest articles on this sites, and the kind of skewed attitude as though he has blinders on makes me skip over his articles.
It's funny when you scroll and skip the Author name. Get less than a paragraph in and say "this is Dilger" scroll up and Yup! Or better yet if it takes you more than 3 flicks to reach the bottom!
Condense- balance- and simplify!
Sound advice, but I noticed that you took 145 words just to say you don't like Dilger's writing style. Hmmm, throwing stones, glass houses is running thu' my head, btw, what in hell is a matyr?
Can someone please tell Dilger that he does not always have to be such a apple matyr? He is great at pointing out where the media is bias- but can never see that his own articles are so far in the opposite side of the spectrum they are hard to trust.
And please- if you need 45 paragraphs to make your point you are just trying to hard.
Filled with the biggest words his thesaurus can conjure, the longest articles on this sites, and the kind of skewed attitude as though he has blinders on makes me skip over his articles.
It's funny when you scroll and skip the Author name. Get less than a paragraph in and say "this is Dilger" scroll up and Yup! Or better yet if it takes you more than 3 flicks to reach the bottom!
Condense- balance- and simplify!
Skewered? What do you mean? You mean biased? Sure. But did you find factual errors? Is he wrong about something he wrote or do you simply not like the gloating?
Comments
I don't get it either. I think it started when Apple was perceived as expensive and catering to an elite back in the original Mac days. The subsequent rise of the PC with its "for the masses" positioning was an almost Robin Hood phenomenon. The perception that viruses were inevitable and the lack of need for serious tech-support in the Mac "it just works" era, plus the Mac platform being simultaneously viewed as a toy yet not being targeted by developers as a gaming platform meant that few groups of people took Apple seriously - graphics designers and layout specialists. Then came the tech-support undercut. In tech-support circles, the Mac was feared on two levels (1) another system to learn how to support and (2) a much lower associated income (vs virus laden PC with an operating system not geared to steady-state health). The very person you needed to keep your PC going was not about to recommend you get a Mac and (resulting from 1, above) tended to invent reasons why you would be crazy to go that route.
Then Apple invented the smartphone (to call anything that came before "smart" means forgetting how truly bad the Treo was). The iPhone became a must-have device but it was still perceived as expensive. Ad financed phones (android) on cheap hardware became a lure and the former PC crowd was attracted by the myth that the platform was "open" (in reality the platform is only open to the cell providers who load the bloatware/adware and determine what the user cannot delete). The iPhone and subsequently tablet revolution undercut the PC industry which tried to respond with netbooks. We know how that went.
Apple did all this. They did not make many friends in the process.
The larger portion of the disenfranchised industry knows that an end-run is in progress and are fighting, kicking and screaming to recover a position of relevance. The press, for their part, produce articles that support their advertising base or are trying to attract money from those sources. Those sources are not Apple.
Government wants its piece of the pie, either through taxation or punitive action. Judges/DAs who want to advance up the ranks, get on that bandwagon and try to make a name for themselves. Apple has popularly become associated with what is bad in the industry (that's the real confusion of fact) and stories supporting that view attract mindshare, even if those stories seriously distort the facts.
How to combat this? Well one thing's for sure, it's not telling DED to be quiet.
You go guy.
Gruber's takedown of Chen was pretty much perfect.
Chen's record as a tech pundit is dreadful.
Can someone please tell Dilger that he does not always have to be such a apple matyr? He is great at pointing out where the media is bias- but can never see that his own articles are so far in the opposite side of the spectrum they are hard to trust.
And please- if you need 45 paragraphs to make your point you are just trying to hard.
Filled with the biggest words his thesaurus can conjure, the longest articles on this sites, and the kind of skewed attitude as though he has blinders on makes me skip over his articles.
It's funny when you scroll and skip the Author name. Get less than a paragraph in and say "this is Dilger" scroll up and Yup! Or better yet if it takes you more than 3 flicks to reach the bottom!
Condense- balance- and simplify!
Guess you would be better off skipping the entirety of Daniel's articles, then. For the rest of us, his insight and research provide much needed context that the likes of NYT prefer to ignore.
Personally I'm not using Any third party apps. The core apps are where the magic happens for me.
Once the native SDK apps start shipping, probably around when Watch OS 2.0 is released, this may change.
I don't understand why the American media wants Apple to fail so badly. Confirmation on what a worthless rag the NY times is.
The NYT is not worthless!!! The paper is great to put down on the bottom of a bird cage!!!
Nothing new. This type of shoddy, biased article has been standard operating procedure at the NYT and many other major news papers for quite some time and it certainly wasn't limited to phone/electronics coverage.
-kpluck
I know, there's no calculator function! Argh.
Politics getting candyass to match Dems lack of spine. I go to the Guardian for global reporting and, though quirky, not too bad on Apple.
My disappointment in the journalistic standards by NYT with regard to Apple makes me wonder are they becoming "link bait" company vs journalists and newspaper with high editorial standards?
It is interesting to think back to 2007 pre-iPhone ...
[VIDEO]
In hindsight, the most significant part of that announcement was the "Breakthrough Internet Communication Device." Steve called this the Internet in your pocket!
Do any of you remember Internet communication on phones before the iPhone? Mail? Messages? Accessing web sites?
Well, there was this esoteric standard (?) called WAP (Web Access Protocol) ... It was a nightmare to program and maintain and was supported (?) differently on every smartPhone ...
Here are some articles from the day:
http://mobileinfo.com/WAP/what_is.htm
http://www.cfconf.org/cfun2k/talks/cf-chapter-from-pro-wap/40441102.htm
When the iPhone was released in 2007, users could access the full web sites (less Flash). It took several years before other smartPhones caught up to offer this capability.
Some (me included) would say the Apple Watch (with its tethered iPhone) offers a much better, cleaner access to the web ... At my convenience -- not at the device's convenience!
It's the Internet on your wrist!
With all due respect, it is DED's critical and factually based articles that draw many to this site. His intelligent analysis, and critical insight are what is missing from many, if not most, general news sources, and even many technology focused sites. He is usually spot on with his critical analysis. The lack of this insight and fact based analysis is what is missing from most journalism today, including the once venerable NYT. It is no wonder that newspapers are failing. The NYT in particular has been one of the worst when it comes to Apple. If you don't like intelligent indepth reporting I might suggest picking up a copy of USA Today or the National Enquirer.
Oh, snap!
With all due respect, it is DED's critical and factually based articles that draw many to this site. His intelligent analysis, and critical insight are what is missing from many, if not most, general news sources, and even many technology focused sites. He is usually spot on with his critical analysis. The lack of this insight and fact based analysis is what is missing from most journalism today, including the once venerable NYT. It is no wonder that newspapers are failing. The NYT in particular has been one of the worst when it comes to Apple. If you don't like intelligent indepth reporting I might suggest picking up a copy of USA Today or the National Enquirer.
I agree, he's clearly arguing Apple's case in most instances, however, it is necessary with all the FUD shoveled constantly from the anti-Apple Corps. I mean, the guy is using facts instead of making wild guesses in order to fabricate a story that does not exist, like the childish NYT crew continues to do (see his evidence on Chen's batting average).
Gruber's takedown of Chen was pretty much perfect.
Chen's record as a tech pundit is dreadful.
BXC is much worse than just an inept pundit. he is a hack that repeatedly turns speculative tidbits from dubious sources into Apple trashing click bait. if he wrote for some Android/MS/Google fan site his non-existant journalism standards wouldn't matter. but when one is writing for the NYT, one expects unbiased professional work.
oh, wait ...
To be fair, I read the NYT more than any other newspaper. Their political and international reporting are outstanding, as are their travel, cooking, arts, movies, and education sections.
Their tech reporting is quite poor. I used to like Pogue a lot, but he's gone some place that I never visit any more.
I totally agree. Sadly, tech reporting in all of the mainstream press is poor (though much of the specialist press isn't much better either).
Can someone please tell Dilger that he does not always have to be such a apple matyr? He is great at pointing out where the media is bias- but can never see that his own articles are so far in the opposite side of the spectrum they are hard to trust.
And please- if you need 45 paragraphs to make your point you are just trying to hard.
Filled with the biggest words his thesaurus can conjure, the longest articles on this sites, and the kind of skewed attitude as though he has blinders on makes me skip over his articles.
It's funny when you scroll and skip the Author name. Get less than a paragraph in and say "this is Dilger" scroll up and Yup! Or better yet if it takes you more than 3 flicks to reach the bottom!
Condense- balance- and simplify!
Sound advice, but I noticed that you took 145 words just to say you don't like Dilger's writing style. Hmmm, throwing stones, glass houses is running thu' my head, btw, what in hell is a matyr?
Skewered? What do you mean? You mean biased? Sure. But did you find factual errors? Is he wrong about something he wrote or do you simply not like the gloating?