[scratt]

Everything Gruber wrote here I agree with 100%. I was thinking most of it as I read Kahney's article in Wired.

http://daringfireball.net/2008/03/kahney_jackass

Does anyone at Wired even read this shit before publishing it?

Nope. Not any more. Certainly not any adults in the organization anyway!

And this postscript is truthfully awesome!

As part of the can you believe what these heartless bastards did this poor kid setup, Kahney writes, “At heart, though, Think Secret wasn’t a financial enterprise but a personal obsession.” I wonder if Ciarelli tried that line on the IRS.

Don't get me wrong.. Apple is still heading very fast towards 'evilosity', in oh so many ways.. thankfully not in regards to the iPhone SDK. However, it has to be said that Kahney is about as far off the mark as he has ever been here.. The guy's an idiot, or in the final death throes of one of the worst kind of hacks! And to think I bought 'Cult of Mac'.

[Mac+]

Agreed - the writing in that article (from what I read) was akin to something that a kid in Yr 9 would produce. Not that I've read Wired in a long time, but I used to hold it in high esteem, especially during my pre-Apple message board days. If Kahney's contribution is anything to go by, then it has certainly slumped.

I feel like a bit of a fool too as I also think I have 'Cult of Mac' in my bookshelf back home.

[Eugene]

Honestly it looks like Gruber is again writing a diatribe for the sake of it. With his following, he risks looking like a grump over an article that hardly anyone will read.

[scratt]

Perhaps he is.. But the point is Wired should be ashamed of how low it, and it's writers have sunk in terms of their literary quality. Frankly, some trashy newspapers articles are a more informative read and better researched than the stuff Kahney is putting out. I think Gruber is simply reacting to that in genuine disgust.

[psmith2.0]

Ooh, fighting geek press writers! These pants aren't loose enough...

One of two things: they'll get into a slapfight at WWDC or the next Apple media event, or they're good friends and are having dinner and drinks tonight and laugh about "people really get into this stuff, huh?"

I don't really know either of these guys. I know of them, but I don't read their stuff much...I've skimmed a few articles/pieces from each.

Bigger fish to fry, and all that.

I've never really liked Wired, however. Subscribed for a while, years ago, and have purchased a few issues here and there over the following years. Never really hit home with me.

I don't know. Seems like someone with a dislike of a magazine, and he wrote about it. I don't know enough about the other guy to know if it's dead-on or not.

But it's cool that the Internet let's anyone publish their beefs, and publicly give someone an electronic poke in the eye/kick to the balls. So that's something.

[Luca]

It seems a lot of "journalists" these days have been adopting the John Dvorak method. That is, instead of writing some thoughtful and maybe even original analysis, they just say whatever they know will rile people up in order to increase the number of hits.

Slate did it with an article about how Gary Gygax creating Dungeons & Dragons has had such a hugely negative effect on our world, and of course that was within a week of him dying. This was written by the same guy who wrote such Pulitzer-grade masterpieces as "10 Worst Gadgets of 2007" and "Why you shouldn't buy the Nintendo Wii."

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I believe that factors in. There is instant response/feedback with online publishing. You write something in a magazine and it might hit the streets weeks after it was written. And then if people write in about to (pro or con), the magazine can pick and choose which letters to publish.

But any of us can wake up this morning, write 6-8 paragraphs and instantly get feedback or complaints, and know that this thing was seen and read by thousands (or more).

I think that creates a bit of a "let's put an edge to this that normally wouldn't have to be there" to spur that sort of response and attention. I think people - writers and readers alike - have just gotten used to it. It's how it is.

[709]

Originally Posted by Mac+ I feel like a bit of a fool too as I also think I have 'Cult of Mac' in my bookshelf back home.

Don't be silly. At the very least there's some good quotes on pages 154 & 163, and some nice mockups on page 165.

[nikstar101]

Having just read both articles , i find the original Kahney article not a harsh as Gruber makes out. Once you read it through, there isn't a lot of slagging off Apple, just comments (that taken out of context seem harsh) about how oddly Apple operates.

And yes Apple does operate differently to other IT companies, that's what makes it great!! And i think that is the point the Kahney didn't make nor will he ever understand.

Steve Jobs and Apple are and will be eternally linked, even when he steps down. Simply because he has grown the company and given it is foundations to build on. Just like Google's CEO believes in this casual way of management, that will stick with Google forever. Its the Microsofts of the world, that try to change there spots depending on the fashion that week, that you have to be careful of, as they have no morals or principles. Therefore will do anything to win.

Apple listens to its customers and gives them what they want, and sometime things they don't even imagine are possible. It does this the best way it knows how, by keeping things secret and working hard at a polished final product (although there have been some not so polished).

PS i also own a Cult of Mac book.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by nikstar101 Having just read both articles , i find the original Kahney article not a harsh as Gruber makes out.

It's not that it's harsh, it's that it's riddled with incorrect data, horrible logic, and specious opinions.

It's a very poorly thought out fluff piece masquerading as journalism, and it needs to be nailed to the wall as an example of What Not To Do.

I mean, it's not like Wired is particularly a well thought-of bastion of journalism in the first place, but cripes, that was bad even for them. Hell, that was bad for The Register.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I mean, it's not like Wired is particularly a well thought-of bastion of journalism in the first place, but cripes, that was bad even for them. Hell, that was bad for The Register.

That's why it's even dumber for Gruber to trash it. It's like Fareed Zakaria deciding to trash a political piece published by the NY Post. A waste of time and it only makes him look petty or bored.

[Kickaha]

I was going to refrain from saying how amusing I find it that you, of all people, are taking someone else to task for being grumpy...

The problem with pieces like that is that there's a significant portion of the non-geek population who thinks that Wired is a *good* geek publication. They'll eat it up with a spoon. Personally, I find it unfortunate that Gruber's rebuttal won't get the same coverage as the original.

Of course, you may be right... it's not like this problem will extend out into more reputable outlets like BusinessWeek if left unchecked and uncorrected...

Oops.

(Here's the rebuttal by the way...)

[Xaqtly]

The Macalope also took Roger Kay's article to task, citing the same problems.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I was going to refrain from saying how amusing I find it that you, of all people, are taking someone else to task for being grumpy...

I don't have to worry about alienating my non-existent following. When you see people conceiving all sorts of shitty ideas like the Mac mini-clubman and iPod touch 3G, you can't help but feel grumpy or murderous.

The problem with pieces like that is that there's a significant portion of the non-geek population who thinks that Wired is a *good* geek publication. They'll eat it up with a spoon. Personally, I find it unfortunate that Gruber's rebuttal won't get the same coverage as the original.

And the non-geek population isn't going to warm to Gruber because of his tone. I use my grumpiness to incite the person across the table in a discussion format rather than a published one.

I mean, it's not like this problem will extend out into more reputable outlets like BusinessWeek if left unchecked... Oops.

Apple does have a bullseye on its back, but it's not the hacker community as the article suggests. The media conglomerates certainly don't want Apple to play in their court, and they have many outlets such as periodicals to spread FUD.

[Kraetos]

What passes for technology journalism today sickens me. It seems like any moron with a computer and a thesaurus can write for Wired or BusinessWeek. If I had handed these into my 10th grade English teacher, I'd have gotten a D for the Kahney one and an F for the Kay one – yet they are being published and most certainly making their authors thousands of dollars. I'm in a really boring class right now, so allow me to whip up a couple examples from the archives: (Mainly the Macalope, DF, and Digg, but a few googled from memory)

How about Mike Elgan? Who seems to think that keeping your arms horizontal for hours a day is practical? Who thought that the Zune put the fear of god into Apple? Or that somehow iTunes was Apple's way of exerting an IE-esque monopoly on the music industry?

How about George Ou? Who thought that:
Vista's 4 year delay was a good thing.
Apple puts DRM on the iTunes store because Apple is anti-competitive.
It was okay to compare the iPod to the PSP without talking about music playback.
OS X is less secure than Windows.

How about Brian Krebs? We all remember the MacBook WiFi Exploit Saga. And even though he was able to (half) prove it a year later - well after the hole he had claimed to found was fixed - it doesn't change the fact that his first article was blatant, obvious diggbait, complete with shoddy reporting.

And of course, Ou felt the need to weigh in (incorrectly) for this one too.

And now we have Paul Thurrott. Who thinks its okay to write up price comparisons with obvious discrepancies in features. Who thinks that Microsoft actually has a significant say in the future of DRM. Who seems to think that Rob Enderle is a genius.

And this, of course, brings us to the patron saint of Jackassery: Rob Enderle. I'm not going to even list links for Enderle; instead, I am going to ask a simple question: when was the last time that Enderle was right about something significant that he didn't second guess himself on?

And there are so many more! John Dvorak. Kahney and Kay, already mentioned above. Michael Kanellos. Larry Seltzer. Cliff Edwards. It goes on and on. It amazes me that all it takes these days to be a technology writer is the ability to troll.

[Eugene]

Good lord, don't even try to pass Paul Thurrott off as a journalist.

[Capella]

Some days, as I work on my BA in journalism, I think I want to be a technology journalist. Then I realize even if I become one, people will probably not read me just because they'll assume that 99% of tech journalists write horribly and never fact check. That makes me incredibly sad. For an industry on the cutting-edge, the writers sure suck a lot.

[Kickaha]

Apparently, tech writers are incapable of figuring out google.

[psmith2.0]

Irony at its goodest.

"This, how you say, 'Google'...how does it work again? I type in words and...is it powered by steam or horses?"

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Capella Some days, as I work on my BA in journalism, I think I want to be a technology journalist. Then I realize even if I become one, people will probably not read me just because they'll assume that 99% of tech journalists write horribly and never fact check. That makes me incredibly sad. For an industry on the cutting-edge, the writers sure suck a lot.

You're looking at it backwards: as a technology journalist, you can write whatever the hell you want and still get paid.

[psmith2.0]

She could go and be one of the good ones, and strive to do it right, using all these others as a guide for "what not to do". That would put her a notch above - and let her write her own ticket.



There's a hole to fill in that particular field, apparently. Make your opportunities (or pounce on them when they're laid out before you)!

[Kickaha]

Pfft. Established industries don't want better, they want THE SAME BUT LOUDER!

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

(Do you have any idea how many consultants, hell, *companies*, I'd put out of business if people actually adopted my software analysis technologies?)

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by 709 Don't be silly. At the very least there's some good quotes on pages 154 & 163, and some nice mockups on page 165.

My book is still in China, so I don't know what you're referring to specifically. I'd take a guess that it's Paul's stuff though. Yes?

[psmith2.0]

Interesting book/situation...I was a younger, greener and more naive/accommodating person 5-6 years ago.

A mean old bastard now, of course.



Still not sure if my presence in that book is an honor or a poke, when I read how it's framed and how the "mockup mavens" are presented. Oh well...it was neat to say I was in a book. Think about it; of all people...my dumb ass.

[scratt]

I preferred the longer version of that post.

[psmith2.0]

I reconsidered how it might've come across, and hit the chicken switch...

It happens.

[scratt]

Personally I think your graphics stand up well on their own two feet regardless of the medium they are in.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Capella Some days, as I work on my BA in journalism, I think I want to be a technology journalist. Then I realize even if I become one, people will probably not read me just because they'll assume that 99% of tech journalists write horribly and never fact check. That makes me incredibly sad. For an industry on the cutting-edge, the writers sure suck a lot.

I'm a few weeks from completing the same degree. I had kind of the same idea as you (tech journalism), but then I decided to forget the whole thing and stay in IT.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by fcgriz I had kind of the same idea as you (tech journalism), but then I decided to forget the whole thing and stay in IT.

[Kraetos]

Well Look At That.

Maybe there is a limit to how many times you can be wrong.