« Nagios 3 on Mac OS X 10.5 server | Main | Hear the bitter voice of the meanest asshole in the Mac market »

Dumbass Du Jour: Time Magazine

Okay, so normally, I don't have to beat on Time Magazine, because normally, they aren't...what's the phrase...oh yes...Stupid. However, it appears their normal competence is still recovering from a weekend of beer, hot dogs, borderline safe potato salad, and wondering if banging your hot slutty cousin counts as incest if it's at a family reunion, you're both drunk and she's a better rassler than you are. Because folks, this article, it's full of the stupid.

First, someone at Time needs to check the air quality, because it looks like Rob Enderle took a crap in the vents, and the stupid spores are affecting the editors. Look at this first paragraph:

It's probably been a while since you bought new software. That's because so many tech firms — buoyed by ads placed in Web-based applications like the Google Docs word processor and the thousands of apps on Facebook — can now afford to give their programs away for free. But don't expect the same deal when you're shopping for add-ons to bling out your iPhone. On July 11, Apple will launch its hotly anticipated iPhone App Store — and it'll be anything but a bargain.

How many ways can you fuck up a paragraph? Let's find out. First, Time, or more correctly, Anita Hamilton, is making the error of "all software is the same", or "just because Google and Facebook are ad-supported, then all software is." Here's a clue Anita: software is not a monolithic entity. Google and Facebook are based upon advertising, (althought in Google's case, that's not completely the case. Google does not give away their enterprise applications stuff. It's not hideously expensive, but it's not free. Anita may want to actually do some research on how Google makes money before she assumes she knows), because that's how they've designed their businesses. Now, how many of the iPhone devs are a Google or a Facebook?

Right. Not many.

See, what Anita forgets is that contrary to what a few high-profile names would have her think, charging for product is still how the vast majority of developers make money. You know. Money. What Time paid Anita for this article. What Time paid the editors who allowed this tripe to be published. She also ignores the fact that when you're using Facebook, you're always in Facebook. You don't use a Facebook application anywhere but Facebook. The same with Google applications, although Google is getting smarter about local storage. My company's instance of Google Docs may have our branding all over it, but when I create a new document, I see..."Google Docs Beta". She's comparing functions within an overall branded container to standalone applications that can have almost any look the dev wants, including totally craptacularrrr. (Thanks to Daring Fireball for the link, and Stevens Creek Software for showing that not even Apple can keep you from creating fugly, stupid UIs.) Then of course, there's the closing line in the paragraph, which sets up the OMG iPHONE SOFTWARE WILL BE TEH EXPENNNNSIVE theme of the article. (Actually, no it doesn't. If this article had an actual theme, it would be far better.) So in one paragraph, Anita has shown that she really has no clue about the many different models of how ISVs generate money from their software, and that this article is really just some hitcount mongering, because after all, if you have "iPhone" in the title, you know your hit count goes straight up.

Anita then spends some time rambling about how some applications won't be free, and others will, and how some of the free applications are going to flash ads on screen. I'm actually grateful to Anita for calling out Buzzd by name and pointing out how it will flash ads onscreen. It makes it easier for me to avoid the stupid thing.

But then we hit one of a continuing series of money quotes:

So why can't all iPhone apps be free? Well, quite simply, because people are still willing to pay for them.

No shit? Really? People will pay for things they want? The Devil You Say! Next you'll be telling us they use some form of currency via an e-lec-tronic payment system that allows them to not only shop for, but actually purchase the products they want via some kind of computerized storefront on some kind of "web" of computers all talking to each other via some kind of fantastical electronic languages and protocols. Obviously the lass has read one too many books by those purveyors of scientific fiction and fantasy.

It's not just Anita pointing out these little known bits of economic wisdom. Oh no, she gets researchers to join her as co-masters of the fucking obvious and stupid:

"It is a historical business model," notes Kevin Burden of ABI Research. Buyers are willing to pony up, though, because of the cachet of the Apple brand.

It's "a historical business model"? No stupid, it's still the major current business model. You want the shit I make, you cross my palm with filthy lucre. It's real common. Ol' Kevvy used it when he was ordering his overly complicated Yuppie coffee the morning he gave us that bit of wisdom for the fucking ages.

As far as the "cachet" thing goes...yeah, right. It can't be because people are willing to pay for stuff they want with any other brand on it. No, it's the result of the cachet of a fucking logo. That's the only logical reason: Apple's brand. It's not like anyone else charges for software, like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the Omni Group, or any indie developer...oh...shit...wait, nevermind that. It's just Apple. That's the only reason...APPLE MAKES YOU INSANE SO THAT YOU PAY FOR STUFF! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! WE'RE MAD AS HELL...oh, wait, the meds are kicking in again. Sorry about that.

Here's another paragraph just dripping with more stupid:

Charging up front for applications also gives Apple an edge with developers. "Part of getting developers to focus on your platform is making sure they will make money off it," says Burden. While this arrangement forces consumers to shell out for programs they may use only once, the economics of the iPhone App Store is much more attractive for developers. Normally, wireless carriers control the pricing and selection of the apps available for their handsets, paying developers no more than 40% of the proceeds. Apple, on the other hand, will give app makers 70% of all sales. (Shoppers can avoid unnecessarily contributing to the pot by checking buyer ratings on apps before purchase.)

Is it just me, or could anyone with a bad high school education figure this out?

But why? Why new friend, why are the developers charging for applications? Well, as it turns out, relying on mobile ads to pay your bills kind of sucks, and there's no indication that it will get any better. I mean, look at Handango. It fucks over devs, it fucks over users, it fucks over everyone, and it's making a fucking mint as a really shitacularly done mobile phone application store. I've used it. It's only slightly less painful than giving a grumpy wolverine a surprise prostate exam. With a hangnail. But guaranteed smaller percentage of sales is better than a maybe larger percentage of ad revenue. One day that may change, but for now, relying on mobile phone ad revenue to support your company and keep you in frivolities like food, shelter, and clothing is not a good idea.

But, we can't have an iPhone article without some mention of Android, and like the rest of this article, it's predictable, trite, and ultimately, tells you nothing of use:

We may find out soon, as free, ad-supported applications gain momentum. The first handsets running Google's Android operating system will go on sale from T-Mobile late this year. Google won't talk specifics about pricing, but some developers expect the widgets that run on them to be free. "Google's strong point is creating inventory to run ads across. I'll bet on the fact that they are going to be free," says Buzzd co-founder Nihal Mehta. According to a Google spokeswoman, "We have nothing to announce at this time," but she says the company aims to satisfy both its customers and the developers who create Android apps.

However, this article isn't just stupid, it's also got factually incorrect statements! Yep, like a jalepeño on your ice cream, we have the surprise "not even remotely correct statement!":

If Apple ever does decide to let all iPhone apps be free, it would be a radical departure from its typical way of doing business.

Anita...um...how do I put this...Apple doesn't set, nor require prices. The fact that some iPhone applications are free, the fact that Apple has said "You can give away your application for free on the iPhone App Store if you want"...see, those would be signs, perhaps indications that Apple isn't requiring you to charge for your application. See how just a little research would have made you look less stupid here?

The only way that makes sense is if Anita wants Apple to not allow devs to charge for their applications, and instead rely on an unproven revenue model that currently sucks. That would be, if possible, even stupider than the rest of the article put together.

But then again, after reading the rest of this idiocy, nothing Anita suggests would surprise me.

Technorati Tags:
Daring Fireball, iPhone, iPhoneTards, Stupidity - It's running the world, TEH STOOPUD

Categories: Mac Matters

Posted by John C. Welch at 12:26 | Permalink

Comments

Warning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar charachters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.

It's probably been a while since you bought new software. That's because so many tech firms — buoyed by ads placed in Web-based applications like the Google Docs word processor and the thousands of apps on Facebook — can now afford to give their programs away for free. But don't expect the same deal when you're shopping for add-ons to bling out your iPhone. On July 11, Apple will launch its hotly anticipated iPhone App Store — and it'll be anything but a bargain.

How many ways can you fuck up a paragraph? Let's find out. First, Time, or more correctly, Anita Hamilton, is making the error of \"all software is the same\", or \"just because Google and Facebook are ad-supported, then all software is.\" Here's a clue Anita: software is not a monolithic entity. Google and Facebook are based upon advertising, (althought in Google's case, that's not completely the case. Google does not give away their enterprise applications stuff. It's not hideously expensive, but it's not free. Anita may want to actually do some research on how Google makes money before she assumes she knows), because that's how they've designed their businesses. Now, how many of the iPhone devs are a Google or a Facebook?\n\nRight. Not many.\n\nSee, what Anita forgets is that contrary to what a few high-profile names would have her think, charging for product is still how the vast majority of developers make money. You know. Money. What Time paid Anita for this article. What Time paid the editors who allowed this tripe to be published. She also ignores the fact that when you're using Facebook, you're always in Facebook. You don't use a Facebook application anywhere but Facebook. The same with Google applications, although Google is getting smarter about local storage. My company's instance of Google Docs may have our branding all over it, but when I create a new document, I see...\"Google Docs Beta\". She's comparing functions within an overall branded container to standalone applications that can have almost any look the dev wants, including totally craptacularrrr. (Thanks to Daring Fireball for the link, and Stevens Creek Software for showing that not even Apple can keep you from creating fugly, stupid UIs.) Then of course, there's the closing line in the paragraph, which sets up the OMG iPHONE SOFTWARE WILL BE TEH EXPENNNNSIVE theme of the article. (Actually, no it doesn't. If this article had an actual theme, it would be far better.) So in one paragraph, Anita has shown that she really has no clue about the many different models of how ISVs generate money from their software, and that this article is really just some hitcount mongering, because after all, if you have \"iPhone\" in the title, you know your hit count goes straight up.\n\nAnita then spends some time rambling about how some applications won't be free, and others will, and how some of the free applications are going to flash ads on screen. I'm actually grateful to Anita for calling out Buzzd by name and pointing out how it will flash ads onscreen. It makes it easier for me to avoid the stupid thing.\n\nBut then we hit one of a continuing series of money quotes:

So why can't all iPhone apps be free? Well, quite simply, because people are still willing to pay for them.

No shit? Really? People will pay for things they want? The Devil You Say! Next you'll be telling us they use some form of currency via an e-lec-tronic payment system that allows them to not only shop for, but actually purchase the products they want via some kind of computerized storefront on some kind of \"web\" of computers all talking to each other via some kind of fantastical electronic languages and protocols. Obviously the lass has read one too many books by those purveyors of scientific fiction and fantasy. \n\nIt's not just Anita pointing out these little known bits of economic wisdom. Oh no, she gets researchers to join her as co-masters of the fucking obvious and stupid:

\"It is a historical business model,\" notes Kevin Burden of ABI Research. Buyers are willing to pony up, though, because of the cachet of the Apple brand.

It's \"a historical business model\"? No stupid, it's still the major current business model. You want the shit I make, you cross my palm with filthy lucre. It's real common. Ol' Kevvy used it when he was ordering his overly complicated Yuppie coffee the morning he gave us that bit of wisdom for the fucking ages. \n\nAs far as the \"cachet\" thing goes...yeah, right. It can't be because people are willing to pay for stuff they want with any other brand on it. No, it's the result of the cachet of a fucking logo. That's the only logical reason: Apple's brand. It's not like anyone else charges for software, like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the Omni Group, or any indie developer...oh...shit...wait, nevermind that. It's just Apple. That's the only reason...APPLE MAKES YOU INSANE SO THAT YOU PAY FOR STUFF! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! WE'RE MAD AS HELL...oh, wait, the meds are kicking in again. Sorry about that.\n\nHere's another paragraph just dripping with more stupid:

Charging up front for applications also gives Apple an edge with developers. \"Part of getting developers to focus on your platform is making sure they will make money off it,\" says Burden. While this arrangement forces consumers to shell out for programs they may use only once, the economics of the iPhone App Store is much more attractive for developers. Normally, wireless carriers control the pricing and selection of the apps available for their handsets, paying developers no more than 40% of the proceeds. Apple, on the other hand, will give app makers 70% of all sales. (Shoppers can avoid unnecessarily contributing to the pot by checking buyer ratings on apps before purchase.)

O NOES! PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR STUFF BEFORE THEY USE IT! DAMN YOU STEVE JOBS, DAMN YOU TO HELL! Come on, admit it. Time's editors were fucking baked and didn't even read this thing before they approved it, or it was charity case day. This paragraph tells us nothing of use, or even that we didn't know. People pay for stuff before they use it? Developers want to know they can make money before they spend their own money and time creating applications? Apple figured out that not fucking over developers on the who gets what chart is smart? \n\nIs it just me, or could anyone with a bad high school education figure this out?\n\nBut why? Why new friend, why are the developers charging for applications? Well, as it turns out, relying on mobile ads to pay your bills kind of sucks, and there's no indication that it will get any better. I mean, look at Handango. It fucks over devs, it fucks over users, it fucks over everyone, and it's making a fucking mint as a really shitacularly done mobile phone application store. I've used it. It's only slightly less painful than giving a grumpy wolverine a surprise prostate exam. With a hangnail. But guaranteed smaller percentage of sales is better than a maybe larger percentage of ad revenue. One day that may change, but for now, relying on mobile phone ad revenue to support your company and keep you in frivolities like food, shelter, and clothing is not a good idea. \n\nBut, we can't have an iPhone article without some mention of Android, and like the rest of this article, it's predictable, trite, and ultimately, tells you nothing of use:

We may find out soon, as free, ad-supported applications gain momentum. The first handsets running Google's Android operating system will go on sale from T-Mobile late this year. Google won't talk specifics about pricing, but some developers expect the widgets that run on them to be free. \"Google's strong point is creating inventory to run ads across. I'll bet on the fact that they are going to be free,\" says Buzzd co-founder Nihal Mehta. According to a Google spokeswoman, \"We have nothing to announce at this time,\" but she says the company aims to satisfy both its customers and the developers who create Android apps.

Right. A phone OS that has no coherent look or real UI guidelines, from the same people who brought you...well, look at the usability of phone OS's before the iPhone bitchslapped the industry. Yeah. Hold me fuckin' back, shitty UIs and ads. All that needs for a trifecta is a rusty iron buttplug with epoxy lube. \n\nHowever, this article isn't just stupid, it's also got factually incorrect statements! Yep, like a jalepeño on your ice cream, we have the surprise \"not even remotely correct statement!\":

If Apple ever does decide to let all iPhone apps be free, it would be a radical departure from its typical way of doing business.

Anita...um...how do I put this...Apple doesn't set, nor require prices. The fact that some iPhone applications are free, the fact that Apple has said \"You can give away your application for free on the iPhone App Store if you want\"...see, those would be signs, perhaps indications that Apple isn't requiring you to charge for your application. See how just a little research would have made you look less stupid here? \n\nThe only way that makes sense is if Anita wants Apple to not allow devs to charge for their applications, and instead rely on an unproven revenue model that currently sucks. That would be, if possible, even stupider than the rest of the article put together.\n\nBut then again, after reading the rest of this idiocy, nothing Anita suggests would surprise me. \n\n\n

Technorati Tags:\nDaring Fireball, iPhone, iPhoneTards, Stupidity - It's running the world, TEH STOOPUD\n