PressWatch: Truth and Imagination in iPhone articles...
30/01/07 22:54
Checking facts is only an optional extra...
OK we're picky. We hate when detail is over-looked, or very obvious mistakes are made. Does no one read this material you would hear us cry. This was the type of noise coming from Mac Information this week. We read article after article which would let detail slip and hyperbole flourish.
Let's begin on a positive note. David Pogue's column in the New York Times is by far the best source for Mac news and IT in general. We like Pogue. We like his writing style, we like the videos, but most of all, we like his attention to detail. You see anyone can voice an opinion, but Pogue knows what he is talking about and has a real feel for technology. On the surface, Pogue has a whacky and irreverent style, but he knows his facts. We can't think of an article which had the wrong details or rattled off a few almost-correct technical details.
Which leads us to the rant. You see, we get a little tired of articles which do one or more of the following: repeat old stereotypes, rattle off technical facts as if they are optional extras, or make ludicrous connections between unrelated events.
First up, the UK Times (also carried in Wednesday's Irish Independent). Chris Ayers wrote the following this week:
"Mr Jobs walked on to the stage soon after 9am and seemed to be making a unremarkable annual address. But after talking about a product called Apple TV, which sends video wirelessly from a home computer to a TV (allowing users to watch, say, YouTube in their living rooms) he made a dramatic pause, then told the audience he was going to announce three revolutionary products that he said would be a widescreen iPod, an internet communicator, and a mobile phone...Later, he revealed that they were, in fact, all the same product."
Not sure where Ayers is coming from here. On Tuesday, twenty six minutes into his keynote presentation Jobs announced the new iPhone. Quite why Ayers concluded that the keynote was looking "unremarkable" is unclear. Jobs introduced the new Apple TV unit in that first section, a device which links Macs or PCs to TVs using syncing and streaming of content. Ok so not as revolutionary as the iPhone maybe, but hardly "unremarkable". Ayers also makes the mistake of saying that you can view You Tube content on Apple TV. You can't. You can view all QuickTime compatible material, but not videos from You Tube.
The problem we have is simple mistakes. Why didn't Ayers check this? Surely anyone writing about tech, especially someone who writes for a large (inter)national paper should know better? We're not saying that he is deliberately including false material, or that he is clueless about his field, but come on Chris, get it right first time.
Next up is Karlin Lillington in the Irish Times on Friday (12/1/07). Don't get us wrong; we like Karlin. According to our sources in Apple, she likes her Mac equipment and is really keen on Apple. But we have a few quibbles with her article in the Business Supplement. She says "Apple is only marginally a computer company now..." Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple reported revenue of $2.2 billion for Mac sales in Q4 of 2006. iPod and other music revenue was $2 billion. iPod and related revenue is big business for Apple; however it is still smaller than their Mac CPU business. Lillington falls into the usual trap of mixing up publicity with fact, and whilst it is almost certain that the iPod and related products have had more attention in the last few years, the Mac business lies at the heart of Apple. It's not that we have an opinions on which part of Apple should be a larger segment of their business. But the facts are there and the financial results for Q4 are easily found.
Lillington also takes a swipe at Jobs, when stating that he receives a salary of $1, but says "the board gives him rather nice gifts, though, such as his own helicopter, and he also gets share options". Two straight points here: Jobs received a jet in 2000. The Apple statement said:
"Apple today announced that its Board of Directors has unanimously voted to grant the Company's CEO Steve Jobs stock options to purchase ten million shares of Apple common stock and to give him a Gulfstream V airplane in recognition of his service to the Company during the past two and a half years." Not quite Lillington's helicopter. On the stocks, Jobs never exercised these options and so never gained financially from the offer from the board. To this day he still receives a salary of $1, which is done to avail of Apple's healthcare benefits for him and his family. Now, Steve Jobs is one of the richest men in the world. His sale of Pixar Animation Studios to Disney this year netted him millions. But Lillington could surely have found out these details without much effort.
Our last quibble with Lillington is her slip into using old cliches when referring to Apple users. She mentions "Mac Faithful", and let me assure you that there is nothing that riles Mac Information more than resorting to the old stock phrases, linking Mac users to evangelism. Sigh. Aren't tech writers tired of comparing the Mac market to religion? I suppose not.
Proof of this lay in the Irish Times on Wednesday. Frank Nally's Irishman's Diary was just nauseating. It's not that the humour was bad; it's just that we have read it all before. Draft 1 of this type of article, which would have appeared in the 80s, was probably very funny. It might have brought a smile to the face in the 90s. But surely comparing Apple to a religion, users to evangelists, and Jobs to some sort of preacher is getting a bit long in the tooth. Did no one in the Irish Times point out to Nally that we have read this stuff before!? "At any rate, with the iPhone, his cult among Mac zealots now seems more secure than ever." Well done Frank. His line and permutations thereof have appeared too many times for us to count. Can we all just get back to the more serious business and branding side of these stories?
However Lilligton was working overtime this week, and her article, opposite Nally's in Thursday's Irish Times (11/1/07), was good. It took the tack of Apple being about design and not geeky products, what she described as Jobs' "sixth design sense". She also had it right on the pricing. Criticising the iPhone and saying it won't be a mass product due to the price misses the point. Lillington rightly points to the iPod, which was also criticised at the time of its launch for being niche and too expensive.
In the end, good articles, like Lillington's Thursday article and most of her Friday piece, are rare in the Irish and UK markets. We look to David Pogue and Walt Mossberg (Wall Street Journal) when we need accurate facts about Mac technology products. If Nally is anything to go by, there is an over reliance on old themes, and very little real insight into the real picture around Apple's products.
Simon Spence/2007
OK we're picky. We hate when detail is over-looked, or very obvious mistakes are made. Does no one read this material you would hear us cry. This was the type of noise coming from Mac Information this week. We read article after article which would let detail slip and hyperbole flourish.
Let's begin on a positive note. David Pogue's column in the New York Times is by far the best source for Mac news and IT in general. We like Pogue. We like his writing style, we like the videos, but most of all, we like his attention to detail. You see anyone can voice an opinion, but Pogue knows what he is talking about and has a real feel for technology. On the surface, Pogue has a whacky and irreverent style, but he knows his facts. We can't think of an article which had the wrong details or rattled off a few almost-correct technical details.
Which leads us to the rant. You see, we get a little tired of articles which do one or more of the following: repeat old stereotypes, rattle off technical facts as if they are optional extras, or make ludicrous connections between unrelated events.
First up, the UK Times (also carried in Wednesday's Irish Independent). Chris Ayers wrote the following this week:
"Mr Jobs walked on to the stage soon after 9am and seemed to be making a unremarkable annual address. But after talking about a product called Apple TV, which sends video wirelessly from a home computer to a TV (allowing users to watch, say, YouTube in their living rooms) he made a dramatic pause, then told the audience he was going to announce three revolutionary products that he said would be a widescreen iPod, an internet communicator, and a mobile phone...Later, he revealed that they were, in fact, all the same product."
Not sure where Ayers is coming from here. On Tuesday, twenty six minutes into his keynote presentation Jobs announced the new iPhone. Quite why Ayers concluded that the keynote was looking "unremarkable" is unclear. Jobs introduced the new Apple TV unit in that first section, a device which links Macs or PCs to TVs using syncing and streaming of content. Ok so not as revolutionary as the iPhone maybe, but hardly "unremarkable". Ayers also makes the mistake of saying that you can view You Tube content on Apple TV. You can't. You can view all QuickTime compatible material, but not videos from You Tube.
The problem we have is simple mistakes. Why didn't Ayers check this? Surely anyone writing about tech, especially someone who writes for a large (inter)national paper should know better? We're not saying that he is deliberately including false material, or that he is clueless about his field, but come on Chris, get it right first time.
Next up is Karlin Lillington in the Irish Times on Friday (12/1/07). Don't get us wrong; we like Karlin. According to our sources in Apple, she likes her Mac equipment and is really keen on Apple. But we have a few quibbles with her article in the Business Supplement. She says "Apple is only marginally a computer company now..." Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple reported revenue of $2.2 billion for Mac sales in Q4 of 2006. iPod and other music revenue was $2 billion. iPod and related revenue is big business for Apple; however it is still smaller than their Mac CPU business. Lillington falls into the usual trap of mixing up publicity with fact, and whilst it is almost certain that the iPod and related products have had more attention in the last few years, the Mac business lies at the heart of Apple. It's not that we have an opinions on which part of Apple should be a larger segment of their business. But the facts are there and the financial results for Q4 are easily found.
Lillington also takes a swipe at Jobs, when stating that he receives a salary of $1, but says "the board gives him rather nice gifts, though, such as his own helicopter, and he also gets share options". Two straight points here: Jobs received a jet in 2000. The Apple statement said:
"Apple today announced that its Board of Directors has unanimously voted to grant the Company's CEO Steve Jobs stock options to purchase ten million shares of Apple common stock and to give him a Gulfstream V airplane in recognition of his service to the Company during the past two and a half years." Not quite Lillington's helicopter. On the stocks, Jobs never exercised these options and so never gained financially from the offer from the board. To this day he still receives a salary of $1, which is done to avail of Apple's healthcare benefits for him and his family. Now, Steve Jobs is one of the richest men in the world. His sale of Pixar Animation Studios to Disney this year netted him millions. But Lillington could surely have found out these details without much effort.
Our last quibble with Lillington is her slip into using old cliches when referring to Apple users. She mentions "Mac Faithful", and let me assure you that there is nothing that riles Mac Information more than resorting to the old stock phrases, linking Mac users to evangelism. Sigh. Aren't tech writers tired of comparing the Mac market to religion? I suppose not.
Proof of this lay in the Irish Times on Wednesday. Frank Nally's Irishman's Diary was just nauseating. It's not that the humour was bad; it's just that we have read it all before. Draft 1 of this type of article, which would have appeared in the 80s, was probably very funny. It might have brought a smile to the face in the 90s. But surely comparing Apple to a religion, users to evangelists, and Jobs to some sort of preacher is getting a bit long in the tooth. Did no one in the Irish Times point out to Nally that we have read this stuff before!? "At any rate, with the iPhone, his cult among Mac zealots now seems more secure than ever." Well done Frank. His line and permutations thereof have appeared too many times for us to count. Can we all just get back to the more serious business and branding side of these stories?
However Lilligton was working overtime this week, and her article, opposite Nally's in Thursday's Irish Times (11/1/07), was good. It took the tack of Apple being about design and not geeky products, what she described as Jobs' "sixth design sense". She also had it right on the pricing. Criticising the iPhone and saying it won't be a mass product due to the price misses the point. Lillington rightly points to the iPod, which was also criticised at the time of its launch for being niche and too expensive.
In the end, good articles, like Lillington's Thursday article and most of her Friday piece, are rare in the Irish and UK markets. We look to David Pogue and Walt Mossberg (Wall Street Journal) when we need accurate facts about Mac technology products. If Nally is anything to go by, there is an over reliance on old themes, and very little real insight into the real picture around Apple's products.
Simon Spence/2007
blog comments powered by Disqus
