I gotta say, I don't get Pro Sports at all. If it was a bunch of guys FROM Boston beating a bunch of guys FROM Chicago, or wherever, I could maybe see caring about it (If you're from Boston or Chicago.) But they hire these guys from all over the country; all over the WORLD now. "Our hirelings can beat your hirelings!" Who gives a shit?

We have the same issue over here in England with football (soccer). I have supported Liverpool all my life and now I am beginning to fall out of love for the sport. We only have 2 English players in the team regularly. It isn't Liverpool. It is Liverpool World XI.

Arsenal who top the Premiership have only one English player most of the time. No wonder England's football team is doing so badly.

Money has attracted the foreign players to our league and although it is an exciting league and high quality it is effecting the national team.

As I understand it European law won't allow quotas so their is no going back.

How can a regular fan relate to a player who earns £80,000 a week. No wonder fans get upset when these high paid players don't perform.

They're too many players mediocre players earn mega money. If their was never a moral high ground at least their used to be pride!

@Arvid: This is the point I try to make with rabid sports fans who are actually open to self-examination. Once in awhile I can get in a few questions before hitting the wall of fandom.

How many players on your "home" team are actually from your home state? How many of them live here, and how many can't wait to leave here when they're not working? I'm supposed to maintain interest in a bunch of steroidal mercenaries?

And is your love for this game based upon the fact that your dad took you to see a lot of them when you were a kid? Whoops.

It ain't about the game. It's about what you did while spending time with your dad during an important time of your childhood. It could have been badminton, fishing or stamp collecting, as long as it was about the attention.

My moment of realization was when Sammy Sosa got his 600th home run. I was waiting for the cries of 'roids and cheater but they never came. There are only a handful of baseball players who have ever hit 600+ home runs--an acheivement that should get at least some of the attention of the Barry Bonds scandal. But absolutely nothing.

Sosa was actually worse in some ways than Bonds. Sosa claimed he didn't speak english well enough to testify to congress. I've heard him speak, his english is excellent.

What it really came down to is that Sosa is a likeable guy and Bonds is not. The issue with Bonds had almost nothing to do with illegal drugs, just your standard cult of personality issues.

You raised an *excellent* point. Face it, if Bonds had been a quiet, humble, nice guy, maybe even tomming a bit, the calls for his blood wouldn't be nearly as loud.

But he's kind of an arrogant fuck, so hang him high. You can do steriods, but to be arrogant? That's just not done.

Same thing with the OMGJANET'SBOOBIE !scandal. Justing Timberlake is practically sucking the public's cock for months afterwards, and he was the golden boy. Janet issued a couple of apologies, and was hung out to fucking dry, because she didn't debase herself with endless abject apologies.

Both have talent, but I sure as fuck respect Ms. Jackson more for her conduct. She showed a backbone and a heaping helping of dignity during the whole mess, and I think the way she was treated was bullshit.

But that's what happens when you don't pull a Swaggart when you fuck up.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Not that the Great and Mighty Marc would do it himself, because hey, he's such a whining wuss:

....

But what to do about it? Caling them names won't really work, and shit like hacking them is descending to their level. So what to do?

Pot. Kettle. etc...

Um...LOL? While you're busy posting from your Verizon Wireless account, maybe you could oh, I don't know, make sense.

See, in the post you linked to, I actually DID come up with an appropriate action to take, one I have, myself, implemented. Shunning them. Don't read them. Let Rixstep's traffic fall to nothing but fanboys. Oh sure, it lacks teh dramah of the Sopranos-like BS Lil' Marc was trying to play. In fact, if you show the rest of that section you see that:

But what to do about it? Caling them names won't really work, and shit like hacking them is descending to their level. So what to do?

Expose Them

Go read Scott's take on it, then dead some of the crazy at Rixstep, including their ass-raping of Scott's good name at http : // rixstep.com / 2 / 4 / 20071221,00.shtml, and if you agree with me, call them out on your blog, site, lj, whatever. If you like, use my new Technorati tag with your post to make it easier for people to spot the kind of dicksnot they are.

Then shun them. Don't link to them, don't visit that site anymore, make them dead to you. Rixstep has the right to be a bunch of dogfuckers, but they can do so alone. Let them shit where they eat, and befoul whatever they touch, but let them do so in an oubliette. Shun Them.

Then send Scott an email so he knows he's appreciated.

What's Marc going to do, make vague threats of hacktitude? That he himself will never carry out?

Maybe next time, you can try for just a stream of profanity.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thank you!

There are times when FSJ's term "freetards" seems so apt, and people banging on endlessly about civil rights while talking about the Think Secret case seem to fit the word precisely.

He induced people to break their NDA contracts, and that's a legal issue in itself (I understand). I've tried looking at this from the other point of view and I just can't see it.

Beyond the legal and moral issues, I always had another issue with Think Secret: it was a total piece of shit, chock full of random guesses and worthless crap that hyped non-existent products to the point that people were actually *disappointed* when Apple didn't release them. That's not a legal or moral issue, just my personal opinion about the site.

I'm okay with every part of this whole issue and how it turned out.

Putting aside the obvious moral argument, I can't see how it can be illegal to induce someone to break a contract. Sure, if you induce someone to commit a crime, that can be an illegal act. But inducing someone to break a contract is not any tort that I've ever heard of or read about.

In this case, Apple's legal team knew they were trying to do an end-run around the law. Only those who signed the NDAs are bound by them, and Apple's recourse is only against those individuals. Suing TS, or anyone, to divulge the names of those with the information is the easy way to get the information. The hard way is to hire private investigators, and read people's Apple email, and use surveillance. Apple wanted an easy way out, and the court found that TS wasn't required to give Apple any information.

If Nick had phoned me and told me who his sources were at Apple, I wouldn't be required to tell Apple. This was a case of Apple hoping they could break TS' silence with their huge legal budget, and for once, the little guy prevailed.

What Apple did here was stupid, because now it will embolden all the other TS wannabes out there to post info received from Apple employees, because they know Apple can't get the sources' names through a civil action.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Uh, John, you might want to change that spelling to fascist. :-)

See you in Orlando.

Now, I think, just in general, that Winer's a doofus, and that you're absolutely right about the abuse of "fascist" as a synonym for "not very nice".

But he isn't "the man" because he's fat, balding, or white (taking your word for it; I don't know what he looks like), any more than Colin Powell is being kept down because he has a lot more melanin then I do.

Plenty of bald, fat white men got kept down by the actual fascist movements that gained political power, after all.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Wow. Sounds like another case study for the Internet Fuckwad patient research that's desperately needed.

Which suggests something that I've been thinking about for about a year or so. A lot of what passes for tech journalism is actually linkbaiting crap. Exposing it with attribution, as folks like yourself do so well, necessarily provides the link that curious readers will use, to the inevitable profit of the crapmakers.

Is there any way for people of conscience to reference and refute detestable Intarnet scandalmongering (which seems to be on the increase, thanks to the lack of critical-thinking skills among our public-educated population) without actually providing immediate profit to said mongers? Or am I being 47-year-old-naive about the mechanisms available?

For what it's worth, I've never even heard of "rixstep" before, or the people associated with it. While they may be assholes, they appear to be assholes with a rather small audience. Hopefully one that's shrinking.

Why would Stepwise pull their own content over this? Perhaps this Anguish guy isn't familiar with Rixstep? No one, anywhere, takes them seriously. They're the wild-eyed, raving derelicts of the Mac community. Actually, referring to them in the plural is giving them way too much credit. Near as I can tell, it's one guy, and he keeps all the crazy for himself.

adding nofollow will avoid giving them Google mojo but it won't stop people from clicking on it. Maybe just scrape their content (without their ads) or post a screenshot of their site so people don't actually have to go there.

Would a DMCA-type takedown be in order? I'd hate to invoke it but you use what weapons you have. Let their hosting provider know they are violating copyright (being a diseased douchebag is not yet a chargeable offense).

I've never read stepwise or rixstep before. So I went to Google to find some content on stepwise.com, and couldn't find anything more recently dated than 2005. ? Then I tried Google Advanced Search for any new pages in the past year, and ... nothing. ?!

As I said in private email, thanks John.

much ado.

There haven't been new technical articles on Stepwise in about 2 years. Having the day job and the hobby now covering the exact same territory have caused that (I work in Tech Pubs at Apple in the Cocoa and Developer Tools group now). However, much of the older Cocoa technical content is still very much relevant.

Community driven content has moved away from a single content provider to individual blogs.

To support that the news links are updated constantly to interesting Cocoa postings and such.

But there is stale content, and stuff needs a general upgrade. Time is the enemy there.

What an amusing internecine clusterfuck!
Payback for past arrogance?
Bunch of ex-NeXTers coming home to roost?

Hey, your digg links are broke.

A blast from the past about the Rixter: http://perversiontracker.com/archives/000249.html

Digger,

I know, but I've not had the time or the caring to figure out why Digg's code isn't working. I probably just have to pick a different option.

They are an eternal Roy Stalin, forever screaming in anger at his defeat on the K-12 by Lane Meyer

Let's hope the Rixster doesn't get his testicles tentacles all over anyone else...

I have long felt Rixstep was one guy suffering from multiple-personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, and other mental maladies of which I know not the names, but now we know: he's just stealing content from other people (and then peppering it with historical inaccuracies and foul, inaccurate personal insults) -- of course it's going to look schizoid.

John, you just go ahead and try to rip me apart. But I'm cooler and smarter than you! Here's my response to your nonsense.

Scurrilous Rogue! Base mendicant! Away with thee, away with the back to that bog of eternal stench from which thou crawled. Oh, do we not rue that dark day! Oh, do we not rue it so!

Do I dare post a comment against this flow? I feel I must. As Mr. Anguish himself para-quotes in his comment above, this whole kerfuffle has been "Much ado about nothing".

Having read the original Rixstep article, I find two things.

One, it was clear to me that the statements sourced from Stepwise were quotes not theft - do you folks honestly think otherwise? They were in block quote style, in a different font to that of the narrator and, above all, the text before each quote made it clear that the following text was quoted from a source!

Two, let's clear this up once and for all, Rixstep's quotng of Mr. Anguish' content is perfectly legal and normal. See this blog post for a rundown on the legalities of fair use, and stop waving your DMCA flags.

Mr. Downes does have a raw and uncompromising writing style and will therefore put some people's backs up, but if you review his written output you can't help but notice how often he has been right on the money. Arrogant and even rude yes, but not wrong. Let's not let the messenger's style drown the message content.

So... it's ok for you to steal an entire post from the stepwise site and post it here because you agree with scott, but not ok for Rixstep to take some quotes because they don't? How is this fair use. Sounds more like something that happens in Communist China to me.

It sounds to me that the gentleman at Stepwise is unfairly indignant.
The Rixstep article quotes source and attributes correctly. An opinion is expressed and views are published.
A rational response to the criticism instead of a slamming the door against dialog would have been more appropriate.

LRM, the difference is, if Scott asked me to change it, or add in commentary from him on this, I would. But, besides that, I didn't change his post, nor did I set it up to suggest he's saying something he didn't. That's a rather important point in all this, actually, it would be THE important point.

You're also ignorant about China. In China, there wouldn't be any bitching about copyright or anything similar, and you'd be damned lucky to have a blog in the first place. But you did attempt a strawman, so that's something. Something sad and pathetic.

SLmanDR

The point isn't about attribution, it's about reposting Scott's articles to make it sound like Scott either agrees with what Rixstep says, and that is Apple pulled a "bait and switch" wrt cross-platform cocoa, (which is ridiculous anyway, unless you think every mention of a product roadmap is a guarantee. If you DO think that, I have some nice oceanfront property in MO to sell you), or that Scott said that himself.

Neither is the case. It is that attempt to make it look like Scott supports that POV that is the problem here, not quoting quality. That's the scummy part. The stealing multiple years worth of posts wholesale, (and yes, there is a difference between a single post, and years and years of posts) is not helping Rixstep any.

Of course, your theory that rational discourse with Rixstep is possible is, to be mild, hilariously ignorant, although for someone who is a fan of Rixstep, unsurprising.

"they're the idiot savants"

"idiot savant" is probably not a good term to be throwing around in a spat of this sort, John. It's an old term that's been used by neurologists to refer to the extraordinary abilities that are occasionally shown by autists (c.f. Dustin Hoffman in _Rainman_) even sometimes by those who are in other ways severely retarded. Such people are interesting in themselves - take a look some time, for example, at the story of the twins in Oliver Sacks book _The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat_.

http://www.oliversacks.com/hat.htm

It's possibly not a good term to use at all these days, but it most certainly shouldn't be used as a term of abuse. If "idiot savants" deserve anything, they deserve some consideration and support.

Nick,

I was well aware of how I used the term, and I meant it precisely the way I used it. If that, for whatever reason offends your sensibilities, that is your issue. Read that definition again:

noun ( pl. idiot savants or idiots savants pronunc. same)
a person who is considered to be mentally handicapped but displays brilliance in a specific area, esp. one involving memory.

I suppose I could have called them "moronic cocksuckers", but that wouldn't have had the precision that "idiot savant" did in that case.

However, what you are describing is probably better described as an "Autistic Savant" which carries the more correct connotation that you are ascribing to idiot savant.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Wow! That's great!

It IS pretty awesome, but your site! It looks almost... professional! Noooooooooooooooooooo1!!!!!1

Also, dude just got a new logo and immediately digg icons appear everywhere? Getting pretentious already eh?

Oh, and just to be a dick: it's faScist, with that extra S. Tweet tweet!

Love it! What an excellent job Melissa did.

Sweet. Cranky, and suggesting that you just can't _believe_ something you've just heard some delusional twerp say.

Very excellent!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

I had to stop reading when you cited SAP and Intel. SAP makes a living selling c..p to corporate idiots. Even mentioning them in the same article is a disserver to the fine engineers who designed the iPhone. ( caveat.. I once saw a nice SAP implementation, that companies IT department was run by a genius who went to the catbert school of management.. He told the SAP field-engineers to go to h..l and re-wrote most of the front end from scratch).

The quality of SAP's software is immaterial to the main point, which is that enterprise companies see some value in the iPhone.

John your attitude conveyed in this article is unfortunate. Try to use less blaming, less cursing and a rather more freindly style.

missti:

No.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

John, it doesn't hurt at all, when you can compartmentalize the way these people can. Some of them harbor completely contradictory facts in what passes for their minds.

Especially if you believe that science is merely part of ghod's Mysterious Plan, something we poor schmuck humans can never completely understand.

Granted, some of them are just working their marketing jobs for a paycheck, and know very well what sort of shit they're shoveling. Some others are just showing up at church and writing checks they can't afford, because it all sounds like stuff they shouldn't bother trying to figure out. There are levels to this cult behavior.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

keep in mind.... she's a girl... they care for that (instantly, bree from housewives springs to mind ;)

as a kid, I ALWAYS requested hard cash. drove my grand-parents to tears, they were trying to give me actual presents.... which I always refused...

I always asked for money, until people complained about it. (Apparently the rumor went out that I was spending present money on bills, the horror!!) So now I ask for donations to certain funds. Last birthday it was the Get Paul an iPhone Fund.

And I did, so fuck you Weston. (Also the name of an evil company I used to work for, scary!)

I do ALL of my shopping at the bank. No one yet has turned their nose up at cold hard cash. Besides, I do not live with the people I am buying presents for ... how would I know what they want? In conclusion, cash is the ultimate gift certificate.

"Young people, especially, are so enamored of gift cards, with being "empowered to make their own choices," as one retailer laughably put it, that they don't even realize what they're missing."

As a young person, I'd happily use gift cards and cash to pay my electric and grocery bills... cause all "young people" must have perfect parents who can afford to support and raise them leaving us "young people" to feel empowered when we get to choose what (useless for survival) shiny shit to buy. I'd be so fucking grateful for the financial help... more so than chocolate covered strawberries. Who NEEDS that?

What a great post.
Cheers.

Another thing that pisses me off is how every "appropriate" gift she mentions is both expensive and useless. A "soup tureen"? Holy shit, is she dining with the Vanderbilts on Tuesday after croquet?

bah.

Two of the best gifts I've gotten were a detachable keychain, and a poster commemorating 50 years of Playboy cartoons. Total cost was maybe ten bucks.

At my wedding, I was so happy that my friends and family were able to be there that I didn't give a rat's fuck about what they got me in addition. Too bad Lizzie's all about the bling, she seems to have forgotten some things.

Excellently written. A great Stumble. For our wedding, my husband and I asked for donations towards buying our home--we 'gave' pieces of our home in return. For example, in the Thank Yous (that we DID write immediately after honeymoon) we enclosed a photo of a door, kitchen table, curtains, etc to show the giver just how put their generous gift to use.

Nothing like seeing the other side of generosity to make me feel even more generous to my loved ones. Well done.

What a whiny bitch. Here's someone who basically wants to make gift-giving all about her. When she gives, she wants you to be wowed by how creative and thoughtful she is, and when she gets, she wants to know that the giver labored over the decision. Must be nice to have that kind of time on your hands.

People like this hate gift cards because they already have magic plastic cards that get them anything they want: they're called credit cards.

Thanks for this post. Makes me grateful to have a wife who appreciates whatever I give her.

I would rather not bash on Ms. Weston and her blatent pretention. Her words say enough about herself and her perspective that mine only can dilute and confuse what is obviously there (or, for that matter lacking).

However, what disturbs me most about her post is that someone may believe they are offending me or many other people I know by having the apparantly poor taste to give gift cards or even (gasp) cash.

Certainly, many of my friends and relatives know me and my tastes well. However, they don't necesarily know what may particularly satisfy those tastes. Sometimes, also, I would like a gift that costs more than I would ever want anyone to spend, such as that iPhone mentioned above. I think nothing less of of anyone who may give me a gift card or cash as a gift.

For that matter, I think nothing less of anyone who might give me nothing more than a brief note and well wishes. After all, it is the thought that counts!

I love you.

People like Lizzy Weston are a prime example of what's wrong with the world. I've encountered too many of them to be surprised, but being faced with them never fails to depress me.

Luckily my friends and family know that nothing gives me more joy than spending hours browsing the shelves of a favourite book store, gift card in hand... Even better, they know I don't want anything other than continued friendship for doing the things that friends do for each other.

Ain't no rant like a John Welch rant!

(with apologies, I'm really as whitebread as they come)

Right on. My neighbor helped me install a garden door this summer. He does woodworking and carpentry, but I don't know for certain what he has, wants or needs in his shop or toolbox.

But a gift card for Lee Valley Tools sure put a smile on his face.

omg, you are hilarious.

Anyone who wants to get me a gift card, feel free.

Vi at Violent Acres sent me here and I'm glad - your takedown is hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh!

I love you. Please accept my proposal of marriage. I won't even ask for an antique soup tureen.

Self-centeredness aside, Liz's problem is based on ego. She doesn't like gift cards. She is (supposedly) a smart person whose financial opinions are listened to and even paid for. Therefore, all her opinions are worth listening to and paying for.

She's unable to separate the rest of the world from her own head, because in her world, everyone agrees with her.

The last wedding I went to, several friends and I got together enough money for a professional wedding photographer. This was cash, handed to the bride's father to pay for the photographer. I wonder what lovely Lizzie would think of that?

You and Vi should start a glossy. It'd be SOOO refreshing!

Good christ. I roll my eyes at Liz Pulliam Weston AND this Bynkii person. Both apparently have too little of real consequence to consider in their lives.

Money always makes a better gift. ALWAYS. Gift cards are great, actual cash is better... or a massage. But then they could just give me a gift certificate for a massage... o.0

People bitch too much about everything. Someone will always be there to be the jerk and complain when no complaint is warranted. What can you do.

Reminds me of a post I made a while ago as a guide for Christmas gift-giving...
http://knibbe.fmly.ca/hungary/2006/11/christmas-season-handy-guide.html

Great post. Nothing more I hate than snooty bitches trying to play the next Martha Stewart. Personally, I'm on a tight budget, so to me a gift card means Opportunity; last year an AMC gift card meant I could go to the theater a few times, a Melting Pot gift card meant I could have a date at something a little nicer than an Applebee's, and a Target gift card meant I could spend a little extra money on something I had been wanting, but couldn't budget for. Those were great gifts, and I was completely grateful for every bit!

I personally don't give gifts. Instead, I take people out to do something and spend time with them, to let them actually know I care about them more than monetary goods. I hate the commercialization of the holidays, and by taking people to dinner, or a movie, or ice skating, or whatever, it strengthens our friendships and is more fun than opening a gift; it makes memories too. I finally got my family to stop giving gifts, and we instead take a nice vacation every year using the money we would have spent on things nobody wanted. Again, memories and fun are better than a better blender.

Obviously she doesn't remember what it's like to be on a tight budget. Gift cards for favorite stores can be bundled together to buy yourself something nicer than you could afford on your own and beyond what any one individual could ever be expected to buy for you. Or it means you can eat in a tight week. Or it means you can buy something to please yourself, without having to feel guilty about not spending it on bills.

Gift cards are GREAT gifts, when it's the right card for the right person. And buying the right card, or buying a card for the kind of person who would really appreciate it, shows that you care enough about them to know that they would rather receive a $20 card for Starbucks than some crappy glass candleabra set.

Oh, god that was funny, and true. I may not need money to pay bills but there's things that I want that would be a copper plated pain in the ass for some one else to buy for me, and then give to me, just because of the complexity of transferring it.

That, and I remember last year my parents gave me a $100, I used it to take my cousin and his wife to the movies. I had a good time, and they had a good time, and they appreciated it.

Good christ. I roll my eyes at Liz Pulliam Weston AND this Bynkii person. Both apparently have too little of real consequence to consider in their lives.

And yet MC, you read both articles, and left a comment...doesn't say a lot for the deep meaning in your life, does it.

Thank you for this.

No, seriously. Thank you. You and V both. If I had a blog, I'd thank her too.

Bitch, I'm a college girl trying to live on my own, pay for books and tuition, and still keep my head above water. I'm sorry if my parents don't pay for everything like yours obviously did, but I don't need an antique tureen. I need money. Do you think I can box up the tureen and send it to my bank after they give me a bill? No. What will happen to the tureen is I will eventually sell it to my neighbor so he can use it as a bong and I can pay the rent.

I don't want to be accused of defending this Liz person, because I haven't actually read what she wrote, but I'm thinking there are two sides to this one.

Firstly, like most other people here, I'd be thrilled to *receive* a gift card as a present, would spend it gladly, and would definitely not think any less of the person who gave it to me.

But secondly, and I think this was perhaps the point Liz was trying to make, I'm not so inclined to *give* one. Unless I'm really short on time or ideas, I'd rather put in a bit of extra effort to choose something I think reflects both my friendship with the recipient and the occasion at hand. Who knows, maybe my ideas and my gifts suck and the person would really prefer a gift card, but I'd like to think my careful selection counts for something.

Judging by the throngs of people crowding out the malls at this time of year, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

The message I keep getting is that we should all be expecting gifts this season. Hey, I'm an entitlement whore with the best of them, but I'd rather see my family and friends, and spend time with them, or spend an hour on the phone with them catching up, especially now I've moved to a different country, than sit there, measuring my popularity buy the quantity and quality of the gifts or cards I receive.

It's the thought that counts, and if sending a giftcard says I'm thinking of you, then so be it. Seems like Liz needs to remember what it's all about.

You couldn't possibly be referring to the stylish suburb of Weston, Florida with its gated communities full of white collar criminals and jackasses could you? Please tell me there isn't another Weston that's even worse, because that would just be too depressing for me to handle.

awesome post. came here from VA. I think you should send this to this Lizzie character. I think it'd be funny.

Great post - Screw hallmark holidays.

I truly enjoy peering through the filthy window into another bitter persons life.

Gift cards are awesome - Cash is even better.

& Gift cards can be thoughtful -
BestBuy = GOOD , Walmart = BAD

Anyone receiving unwanted gift cards may forward them to me.

Wow. Liz is talking about the "art of gift-giving" as an etiquette-based tradtion, and you lambast her as being selfish and judgmental? When all this post is full of is your whiny, selfish and judgmental ramblings about how she's such a bitch because oh no, she has this well-thought out post about why she doesn't like something?

I mean really, your first argument sets the tone of idiocy for the rest of your bitchfest: "Hey fuck you, maybe that's all I had time for. Maybe there was some shit going on, and instead of ignoring everyone, I did what I was able to. Jesus, sometimes life sucks, and you don't have time to make doilies for everyone."

So you get defensive right off the bat when she says gift cards say "checked you off the list!" You say "FUCK YOU IT'S ALL I HAD TIEM FOR!!!" You're admitting you didn't/couldn't give something that takes more time/effort and figure a gift card "is better than nothing! AT LEAST I GOT SOMETHING DAMN LIEF SUCKS SOMETIMES MAN!!! OH AND YOU'RE A STUPID FUCKING COW SUBURB BITCH TOO!!" Why all the character assassination? Don't actually have hardly any reasoned, valid points to refute her article, do you? Probably because you missed the point of half of them.

Wow. Liz is talking about the "art of gift-giving" as an etiquette-based tradtion, and you lambast her as being selfish and judgmental? When all this post is full of is your whiny, selfish and judgmental ramblings about how she's such a bitch because oh no, she has this well-thought out post about why she doesn't like something?

Of course, she can't be bothered to actually get her own husband something he'd actually want, so the idea that she's listening to anyone but her delusions of Martha is ridiculous.

Why all the character assassination? Don't actually have hardly any reasoned, valid points to refute her article, do you? Probably because you missed the point of half of them.

Here's a perfect example that I got her point, and that you're a stupid fuckstick:

Would proud grandparents present the latest addition to the family with . . . a gift card?

That's the part of "thoughtfulness" that Lizzie keeps missing. She's so deep into her OMG SOUP TUREEN delusions that she forgot that the best gifts are the ones that show you really listened. Maybe if she did more listening, her husband wouldn't have to return any, much less so many, gifts.

When I was still in school a friend gave me a card with a $50 in it for my birthday. He said he wanted to get me a book but with the size of my collection it is impossible to know which one. His plan was that we would spend a day in bookstore - which we did. It was brilliant - we talked about books all afternoon, had a coffee and I had a gift that was doubly cool: books and a day with a friend.

For years I've been telling people that I don't want gifts, I want to spend the afternoon doing something with them. I particularly like this with friends who have kids that I don't get to see often. And for them, as gifts I do give gift certificates - home made ones that say "good for one night of baby sitting" which seems more appreciated than some knick-knack.

I'd love to see you and Violent Acres ranting together after a few drinks.

Last week my employer asked me what I'd like for X.Mas because she was wracking her brains thinking of a gift that I would like/appreciate/enjoy. She mentioned some thoughts, like a good rolling back pack since I'm starting college next year, or another camera lens for my photography addiction, etc...

And I smiled knowing that she was actually wracking her brains to find a gift for me that I would love. But rather than a back pack or new camera lens I suggested that, although it might seem lame because I didn't know her take on it, I would seriously appreciate a gift card to Target more than anything right now.

Because what she doesn't know is that I actually NEED socks that don't have holes in them, sweat pants so I don't freeze at the gym in shorts for the winter, and underwear whose elastic isn't stretched out. And if the gift card holds a significant amount I could also stock up on dog food, and toiletries.

The first year I started working for her I received $1000 bonus for X.Mas and literally burst into tears at such generosity. I was able to make three car payments out of that.

The second year I worked for her I received $500 bonus for X.Mas with a few extra very adorable gifts. The cash went to pay bills.

This is the third year I'm working for her and I have a sense that financially things are a bit more tight for her, but the fact that she mentioned she was hunting around for gift ideas for me was a gift in and of itself.

And seriously, to all those who have known what it's like to struggle financially during those years you're getting yourself ready for the rest of your life, there's an understanding and acknowledgment that a gift card makes all the difference.

Oh, and just to add: Chocolate covered strawberries, for me, would have been gladly received, and appreciatively thanked for, but would have gone straight to someone else in the house whose metabolism is faster than mine.

The best gift that Lizzie could get in life, in my opinion, is the gift of financial struggle; it takes the snob out of the snobbiest of all of them.

The only gift I like is being able to keep as much of my money as I can. As a young person with lots of bills, I like receiving practical gifts of shit I would have to buy anyway like groceries, gas, or ink cartridges. If I'm living with holes in my shoes what am I going to do with a fancy digital camera? pawn it. I'm sure Weston would prefer that someone deign to buy me a gift card than to see their preciously chosen gift end up that way.

Personally, unless it is a well thought out gift, I prefer cash rather than gift cards. Reason is simple: cash is a universal gift card.

With gift cards inevitably I end up with $10 at one store and $10 at another, and so in order to actually use them I have to start spending my own money. As much as I appreciate the gift, having to work out how best to use them kind of sucks the joy out of it.

Cash or pseudo-cash (card that says "go out for dinner to the value of $x), is something I really appreciate. However, in order to get around some people's issues with cash (which is definitely not universal), it helps to have a 'cause' to put it towards.

This year I have the "new bed" and "trip to Europe" causes. If friends or family gift cash then they can explicitly put it towards one of those two things. Even if it is just a couple of bucks, I would be very happy with contributions!

Cheers, Chris W.

You know I really agree with you and V. I hate that bitch too, she is greedy and slefish.

But I really, really hate that part of her taking a friend to the hospital and talking about not getting her fucking precious basket of chocolate covered strawberries yet instead gets a gift card. Oh and also even though a gift is not needed it can still create a bond

JUST BE DAMN HAPPY YOU SAVE YOUR FRIEND'S LIFE ASSHOLE! WHEN THE PERSON YOU SAVED REALIZED YOU'RE THE ONE WHO MADED SURE THEY ARE ALIVE THAT WILL CREATED A DEEPER BOND THAN SOME CHOCOLATE FUCKING COVERED STRAWBERRIES!

God it's people like her that remind me why there are still fucking idiots out there...

I forgot to put this in there.

To cover my own ass I know that what she stated what not real but a fake situation. Still that does not give her the right to say that she deserves a reward for saving someone, just be happy the person is alive damn it!

This post makes me giggle. I also was directed her from violent acres. Has Liz forgotten about the tradition to give babies savings bonds so that when the child needs money in x number of years they can have it? I got savings bonds as a baby, and hell, they're gonna help me by a car when I'm in my 20's. Wow, something I can use for YEARS! What about me wanting to give a gift to a friend that I just don't know their clothing size? Why not give them a gift card so that they can pick their size, or clothes they need for something so they don't have to stand in the stupidly long and obnoxious return line? I would think not having to deal with returns is a gift in itself.

Liz is all about showing off to the neighbors in her McMansion subdivision. It's a very ancient form of tribal behavior, where you publicly demonstrate how much wealth you can afford to blow on useless, expensive trinkets.

And I'll bet she expects this sort of thing in return, because a) that's all her life is likely about, and b) she writes for a venue which drives (and is driven by) sales of consumer items. I'll bet it's perfectly natural for her to assume this shallow level of thought is a legitimate component of "etiquette."

I also doubt she writes "personal finance" articles for the sort of middle-class folks who truly need advice to manage their monthly budgets. Her prose pulls me away from the supermarket, and towards the boutique.

In a family of print and digital junkies with bookshelves overflowing and hard drives bursting at their ...seams? There is nothing more reasonable or thoughtful than a gift card. As much as the various members of our family may love each other there is just no way even the most intimate of partners can be sure their carefully selected book, software, gadget, movie, music hasn't been downloaded, borrowed, or bought minutes before Christmas morning.

A gift card for the local indie bookstore? I'm in a heaven, a 2nd copy of that book that may be #2 on the bestseller list but sucks anyway... not so hot, enough credits at one of my fave stock photo places to have my creative juices oozing? Awesome... so what if it doesn't come wrapped in pretty little package, a red and green email background is just fine :) Perhaps the real problem for miss thing is exactly what she claims is the problem for the gift card crowd... she wants to give everyone else what SHE thinks they SHOULD want, instead of making the recipient happy...

Thanks John - I have not laughed this hard in days! First time reader/poster who will be laughing about OMG SOUP TUREEN for many days to come!

I think the point that she was trying to make is that people who give gift cards are poor or socialy inferior to those that do not. For example;

(If the answer to any of those questions is yes, by the way, you need to start hanging with a better class of people.)

And to top taht off, there is the repeated refrences to "Judith Martin, the doyenne of etiquette known to millions as Miss Manners" and others like her."

Who the fuck are these people? I do not know her, but would venture to say that She is obviosly an elitist arrogant bitch.

Happy Holidays!

P.S I hope i get some giftcards, it would be better then an art set I got last eyar but never used!

Wow. Bitches like this make me ashamed to be a woman. I'd much rather receive a gift card to a bookstore than the self-help books my aunt gets me about how vitamins will Change! Your! Life!

A gift card to a specific store you enjoy says more than a Hell-Mart gift card. The former says, "I don't know enough about which books you're into, so I'm afraid if I bought you one, you might either hate it or already have it, so this way you can buy the book you want most." The latter says, "I have no fucking clue what you want, but there are Wal-Marts everywhere, they have everything, there, I got you something." And for someone like me, gourmet candy is just insulting--everyone in my inner circle knows that candy, in my house, disappears before I even touch it half the time. XD

My 83 year mother can't get out to shop and is not good on the Internet never forgets special occasions with a gift card and it's always appreciated.

I have enjoyed this thread, and the referent from Vi, so much... So very fscking much. I, too, was the kid who had to explain to his parents at a very early age that cash was an entirely appropriate gift, and didn't mean that it was a failure of them to invest time in thinking about a present for me, but moreso a recognition of the fact that for this individual (me), cash is the best gift that you could give me. To have money in pocket is a feeling that I don't need to explain to anyone here... ;) Mind you, I do love a good present (plaid skirt, stockings, etc... - but that shows that she knows, accepts and indulges my idiosyncracies, which is the true gift ;), but now that I've grown up, and have a glut of disposable income, I've pretty much bought whatever tech-o-the-day caught my eye... So, any gift given that I really might like, I really might already have... Except an iTouch. But I'm waiting for next gen, so that doesn't count... ;) So, a phone call, a card, hell, an email or SMS just to let me know that you're thinking of me, that's good to go, and I'm grateful for it (even if I don't send thank you cards in an appropriate timeframe ;)

And while I'm on the rant, I have issue with just because it's traditional, that's when you buy gifts... I buy things for people when I see them, and I think that they might like them... Thus, you are much more likely to get an impromptu 'saw this crap and thought you might like it' gift, vice an actual X-mas/Valentine's/ present. I like that better... I usually have multiple boxes to mail to people in various stages of stocking... When I get enough stuff, I send it...

Last comment: Cash is ALWAYS an appropriate present for a college student. Especially grad students.

Now usually reading these articles i find something plausible to them - and that most responses are self righteous shit stacks that teem with the level of angst usually accredited to the teens of the world.

But this.
This, was good.

I mean.
What the FUCK is wrong with gift cards?
This Weston chick seems so self indulgent with the pleasures of her little designer lifestyle that she gets all pissy and goes on a hypocritical verbal rampage that oozes stupidity - when someone gives her a gift she can't automatically cash in at the nearest sentimental shit-facility. I mean, she only seems to be complaining about how she has to put in ANY effort to actually go out and shop for herself.

Sorry lady, Copernicus called, turns out you're NOT the center of the universe after all.

She is a degenerate sour mouth who needs to get her vaginal cavity nailed to a blackboard from the inside.

Then I don't know.
Maybe someone can give her some chocolate dipped strawberries to make her feel better...

VA sent me...and as a new member of the audience...I was moved, in much the same fashion as a bowel might be, by the sheer arrogance Miz Weston has relegated herself to. I immensely enjoyed Vi's little rant (as I have enjoyed everything I read there) concerning this obviously overly-important woman's view on gift cards...and as one reader above stated, the best gift she could receive would be financial struggle...to that I will add a wish for experiencing all that life can show her...perhaps it will teach the humility she so desperately needs.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

This is not exactly an accurate analogy.

It is a well established principle in American law that "Freedom of Religion" means freedom of religious _belief_, not freedom of religious _action._ You are only free to act upon your religious beliefs if they are not currently illegal anyway: if your belief extends to what you wear or what time of day you pray, then knock yourself out. But if your belief system includes child sacrifice or paying for sex or taking certain drugs--sorry, you're out of luck. (There is some fuzziness surrounding drug use by Native Americans--but even there the door is closing on drug use.)

If we applied the analogy to homosexuality, then you could be free to believe all you want that homosexuality is good and nice and righteous--belief is protected--but the moment you tried to act, you could get into trouble if someone outlawed it.

On the other hand, if you think carefully about what John wrote, you'll see he's not talking about pedophilia, but such mundane ideas as zoning and hiring practices, which are actions that affect the public, and are in direct conflict with the general public's wellfare.

In other words, we're not talking about a limited series of actions that are private, but an established body of law that directly affects the general public. So, once again, why should religion be afforded such protections, when it is a clear choice? Would you mind taking a shot at answering THAT question, instead of a strawman?

"On the other hand, if you think carefully about what John wrote, you'll see he's not talking about pedophilia, but such mundane ideas as zoning and hiring practices, which are actions that affect the public, and are in direct conflict with the general public's wellfare."

Which are also not protected and in fact are being increasingly regulated. Churches are not exempt from zoning laws but depending on the municipality are equally regulated and are required to deal with traffic flow and noise level laws. The Salvation Army has come under fire for its hiring practices as well as several Catholic dioceses, despite both being churches. Other areas have also come under fire as well--including private individuals putting up Christmas decorations that are items of faith (such as a Manger display) on their front lawns in homes that are part of a regulated home owner's association.

"Would you mind taking a shot at answering THAT question, instead of a strawman?"

Again, my point was that in the United States precedence has been firmly established that "freedom of religion" protects freedom of "conscience"--or rather, the freedom to believe as you will. But it does not protect your freedom to act in a way which is contrary to public law. This is not some sort of "strawman argument"; this is established Supreme Court case law.

(To get technical, from my research the primary test here is the so-called "Lemon Test" (from Lemon v Kurtzman), narrowed greatly by Employment Division v Smith--the upshot of it is that if a law has primarily a secular purpose and can be uniformly applied across religious beliefs, then it is constitutional. Labor laws and zoning laws in general meet this test, so they are not considered infringing. Now if a city were to create a special zoning exemption denying a congregation from building on a specific parcel of land, that would be a different matter. But it fails the test because the law targets a specific church and is not a broadly-applicable law.)

You are only free to act upon your religious beliefs if they are not currently illegal anyway: if your belief extends to what you wear or what time of day you pray, then knock yourself out. But if your belief system includes child sacrifice or paying for sex or taking certain drugs--sorry, you're out of luck. (There is some fuzziness surrounding drug use by Native Americans--but even there the door is closing on drug use.)

So then why hasn't the Catholic Church been busted on providing alcohol to minors? Last I heard, wine is in fact alcohol, and giving it to minors is in fact, illegal in this country.

You also ignore the fact that religious practice is protected as well, for example, protecting the rights of certain christian sects to not recite the pledge, for example. Similar precedent exists for muslims to pray, or sikhs to wear turbans and carry kirpans. The list of legal precedent protecting the expression of religion is long and rich.

Which are also not protected and in fact are being increasingly regulated. Churches are not exempt from zoning laws but depending on the municipality are equally regulated and are required to deal with traffic flow and noise level laws. The Salvation Army has come under fire for its hiring practices as well as several Catholic dioceses, despite both being churches. Other areas have also come under fire as well--including private individuals putting up Christmas decorations that are items of faith (such as a Manger display) on their front lawns in homes that are part of a regulated home owner's association.

Actually, "under fire" is a distraction, as, again, legal precedent has protected the rights of religious organizations to not have to take action that is contrary to their central religious tenants. There are exceptions, but by and large, no, the Catholic Church does not have to hire homosexuals, nor do they have to make married men priests, nor do they have to make women priests.

Again, to be clear, "under fire" is not the same as legal precedent, no matter how you wish to spin it.

i'm well aware of the Lemon test, however, that has absolutely nothing to do with my central point:

It is absolutely hypocritical for someone to say they don't support protecting homosexuality from discrimination because it is a choice, yet support protecting freedom of religious belief and action when it too is a choice.

"So then why hasn't the Catholic Church been busted on providing alcohol to minors? Last I heard, wine is in fact alcohol, and giving it to minors is in fact, illegal in this country."

That varies from state to state; in some states it is illegal to give children wine even at communion. However, in general, the exemption is for minor amounts of wine (a sip, or a teaspoon) for religious purposes. Further, a parent won't be prosecuted for giving their child small amounts of alcohol (wine, beer, etc) for non-religious services, so long as the parent doesn't actually get the child drunk--though given our nanny state, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually groups start demanding children be taken away from their parents because their child got small amounts of alcohol at a special occasion or at communion.

"You also ignore the fact that religious practice is protected as well, for example, protecting the rights of certain christian sects to not recite the pledge, for example. Similar precedent exists for muslims to pray, or sikhs to wear turbans and carry kirpans. The list of legal precedent protecting the expression of religion is long and rich."

Absolutely, and this fell within the purview of the "Lemon" test I cited above. That test was significantly narrowed in the 1990's, which means it's somewhat doubtful that many of these exceptions would survive another court challenge. (The original test was that if such a law was relatively minor but had a major impact on the practice of a given religion, an exemption could be punched through the law for that group. This allowed Christian Scientists to be exempt from getting medical help for their children, for example, or allowed Sikhs to wear a weapon. After the 1990 ruling, however, the emphasis was changed, and the exception granted the Christian Scientists against seeking medical help has been under significant fire--up to and including child welfare taking children away from Christian Scientists.)

The laws providing for certain sects to not recite a pledge or (more interestingly) to allow an individual to claim to be a "conscientious objector" during military service may have been spearheaded by certain religious sects, but those provisions apply to everyone. You don't have to be a Quaker to claim to be a "conscientious objector" in the military, even though it was the Quakers who spearheaded that designation.

"It is absolutely hypocritical for someone to say they don't support protecting homosexuality from discrimination because it is a choice, yet support protecting freedom of religious belief and action when it too is a choice."

I understand that is your point, and it is an interesting one. Further, for most of the religious right who hasn't given two clock cycles to thinking about what they are demanding verses what they are opposing, I think it's a good point.

However, even though Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the First Amendment while homosexuality is not, even the fact that Freedom of Religion is enshrined does not fully protect action--which is my point.

I wouldn't want to see a world where homosexuality is treated the same as freedom of religion: in such a world I could see people saying "well, that's fine that you want to believe in homosexuality, but the laws against male on male sex stand because there is a public need to prevent the spread of AIDS." And if we applied the currently interpreted Lemon test against such an anti-male on male sex law, the problem is it could pass constitutional muster. Certainly anti-sodomy laws (which were designed to prevent homosexuality) have constantly passed constitutional muster: it has required movements from the ground up to get them removed from the books--the courts have certainly allowed them to stand.

In other words, to my mind, homosexuals require full freedom (within the same limits currently set for hetrosexuals, such as current nudity laws) to be able to act without being harassed in any way--which is far more than religion should enjoy. Meaning I think it's far more acceptable to allow "damned Muslims" to pass through my lips after seeing a terrorist bombing than it is to allow "damned faggots" to pass through my lips when I see two guys walking hand in hand down the street.

Wow. Adding AIDS and sodomy to shore up the wicker man analogy. And as a bonus, relativist justification of racism! It's morning in America again!

Damned Christians.

Certainly anti-sodomy laws (which were designed to prevent homosexuality) have constantly passed constitutional muster: it has required movements from the ground up to get them removed from the books--the courts have certainly allowed them to stand.

Actually, at the Supreme Court level, they tend to do rather poorly, even with nimrods like Scalia who never met a government law limiting the rights of the individual he didn't like.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Hallelujah brother!

Well, religion doesn't require freedom. But freedom requires the ability to worship. Otherwise, not so free.

Freedom also requires the ability to speak your mind, but that is NOT the same as "Freedom requires profanity".

Freedom does not require a specific implementation of a right. What it requires is that the government stays the hell out of your religion, or lack thereof. No putting god on money like we did in the late 1800's or 1950s 'cause we're afraid someone ELSE might think we're godless heathens. No sneaking it into the pledge because we're twitchy about the commies. The only time the gov. gets involved in religion is to say they have no comment, and to prevent someone else from using religion to beat someone else down in this country. That's really about it.

Yeah!! And who does that bastard John Adams think he his to say that the constitution was written for the religious?
'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Clearly this SOB doesn't understand the principles that founded this nation!

- From the Ravings of the Psychomancer

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Formatting aside, has anyone ever approached you to write smaller books of the kind Tidbits and Macworld publish?

Not as such. I don't think there's a market for "Take Control of SNMP on Mac OS X"

Heh. I have a feeling that, if I knew the significance of SNMP, I'd be Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My Acronymic Ass Off.

I hate the fact that the proprietary typesetting software of the 1970s soured me on code-related issues.

yes, YOU TOO can get all this theory applied to your brain at Macworld Expo's MacIT conference. ;)

We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll ONLY NEED THE EDGE!

--chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

I love Harlan, and I always have. I've read two teleplays and two dozen books by the man, both fiction and nonfiction. Got a book signed by him in 1980 at the Boston Worldcon, and had to pointedly thank him while he was gabbing with someone else, absent-mindedly scribbling on the bookplate which would eventually get attached to my copy of "Shatterday."

The guy's not someone I'll ever need to hang with, I think. He occasionally comes off as a contentious jerk, and is probably a difficult man to be a friend to. But that's okay, because all I need from him is his writing and his clarity.

Mr. W., you fit right in his category. Except I wouldn't turn down an opportunity to buy you a drink.

Strange thing - my comment vanished. Poof. Gone. I choose to believe there's some upgrade gremlin that took it, 'cause to my knowledge I have not pissed off anyone other than Jack on this blog. I guess it's possible, John, that you've confused me with some other Fred that went over the line in the past? I can't believe my fairly innocuous comment about an ironic situation here would have been cause for removal.

Anyway, let me know and I'll either back off or re-post.

"John's stupidity with deleting comment spam" would be the answer to that question Fred.

;-)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Bezos is a very capable numbers guy, but his organization is apparently very short on design strength.

The layout of this gizmo looks like it'd be uncomfortable to handle and inconvenient to use, but as the Kings mentioned on YML, it might be very useful to students, if it could somehow provide a function that's as convenient and accessible as a highlighter and notes scribbled in the margins.

I like the idea of this thing being tailored to institutions before individuals.

The problem with the student idea is...why? If you're giving students laptops, then wtf do they need the Kindle for? Just have them download the books as PDFs onto their laptops. They'll have a superior UI, bigger and better screen, more useful capabilities and a better keyboard.

If they aren't, then making them get a Kindle won't mean they don't need a laptop. The Kindle is really a monologue, with some basic annotation features so you can get to the bits you liked. That's not really useful for students. Then need more dialogue than that, even with a book. Unless you're talking about a library or library - like situation, I don't see how a Kindle is going to be that useful.

"hump his Kindle until it's as sticky as a stripper's shoes", "If I want porn, I just get it off the internet, not bodice-rippers", "cerebrally bugger me", "computerization in sex toys", "Technorati Circle Jerk Crowd"...

John, I think you need to go and have a nice lie down, or at least try adding some bromide to your beverages!

I thought I'd accidentally surfed to a Playboy blog :)

As to the content, I agree almost 100%; maybe a 95%. I think you are missing another instance where an e-book reader makes sense: for keeping all those PDF instruction manuals and computer manuals within easy reach, so I don't have to have multiple screens on the go, one for my code and the other for the reference. Even with a laptop open for coding, I can still see a use for a second device for annotated PDFs that is stand-alone, so I can take my whole reference library with me even when I don't have my laptop.

When we get an iPhone-styled device, about A5 in size, with unrestricted access and faithful reproduction of any PDF file I care to load onto it, I'll be buying. Make it a web-browser for the sofa, and maybe a VNC client to my desktop via wi-fi, so much the better. (Anyone else thing this is what we'll see from Apple in Jan? An iPhone in a larger form-factor that does exactly what I describe, and will kill Kindle before it starts?)

But yes, I have no inclination to read fiction on one of these devices, as I have no requirement to carry 100's of novels at any one time. If I'm reading a book, why would I need any others? I find it hard enough following plot without changing book-to-book mid-read!

Plus, the only time I get a lot of fiction reading is by the pool on holiday, or when I'm undergoing Oxygen Therapy for my MS, where you can't even take electronic devices into the tank...

In those instances, a paperback is ideal.

I get the impression that all of these devices are working back from e-ink, DRM and technology, rather than from an actual use case. I'm hopeful that someone like Mr. Jobs will show them how it should be done, and create the next big consumer device.

> There are about six "blogs" worth reading. This one ain't one of
> them. Daring Fireball is. Other than those few, stop reading blogs
> with shitty writing. It rots your mind.

Please tell me you're talking about technology focused blogs, eh? 'Cause there are a _lot_ more talented writers out on the 'tubes then you apparently give credit to.

You gonna tell me that Glenn Greenwald is a shitty writer? You got a problem with Digby's prose?

Perhaps emptywheel is too wordy for you, or her research is too in-depth? How about Marty Lederman? Or Carpetbagger? Does Matthew Yglesias make your top six? Tbogg? Roy at alicublog? How about John Cole (his current writing, not while he was blinded by the right)? Larry Johnson? The Editors? Josh Marshall has a blog; is he worth reading? Boo Man? William Gibson posts every week, about as often as you do; should I pass up on his Atom feed? Kevin Drum? Athenae? Holden Caulfield? scout prime? Thers? And I haven't even mentioned any of the diarists on Kos, such as BarbinMD or DemFromCT or SusanG. James Fallows posts about once a day, yet I don't feel a loss of brain cells from reading his shitty writing online, any more then I did when I used to read him in print.

The internets don't begin and end with Gruber and his mysterious five friends.

I for one would put access to all these marvelous writers high on the list of what I want my wiz bang gizmos to give me. And that would mean smart feed access, like NetNewsWire, something tuned for content.

>For one, 90% of my reading is on a plane. I can >read a book on a plane from taxi to taxi, and the >only interruption is the safety lecture.

You listen to the safety lecture?

I'm really embarrassed. Of course students with laptops wouldn't need one of these very much. Shows you what era I was schooled in. Personal computers were a bit thinner on the ground when I graduated in 1982. But oh, that TRS-80 Model III.

Dave, I worked aircraft maintenance for many years. I *always* listen to the safety lecture and follow along with the cards. If nothing else, it's the best time to really lock the flight attendant's faces in memory.

Death to books! (just joking) I'm just tired of what a PITA it is to store media. Sure, we've slimmed down recently (thanks iPod!) the ungodly hoards of CDs, records, cassettes, 8-tracks, laser discs, reel-to-reels, VHS tapes, Betamax tapes, tapes for the video camera, rolls of film/negatives, and all of the freakin' furniture(?!) you needed to store them.

The last step in our media diet is print. I don't know what the answer is, but for the love of God, will someone (anyone) please help us get rid of the constant need to purchase book cases!? When you need furniture to store media, life sucks.

I don't buy the argument about the tangible "fun" of books and their supposed ease-of-use. They take up space (lots of it in my house). They weigh a ton. They get dusty as sin. Pages discolor fairly rapidly. And half the books people collect on shelves are never read a second time. And I'm not even mentioning any of the eco-issues involved with the constant onslaught of printed materials. Stop the insanity!

I do like that you focused nicely on the role newspapers and magazines play in our death by media burial.

Actually Ricket, I was leaving off quite a few issues with ebook readers. For one, without color, you lose things like covers, artwork, and the like. Time magazine on a Kindle is going to suck, because the photos will suck.

The room for storing books is countered by "how do you figure out which memory card has what on it?". There's inconveniences with both, however, the tactile advantages of books, and the complete suck that Amazon brings to browsing and the "aha" experience, not to mention the inability of the Kindle to even allow you to treat e-books as you do a real book is real.

If you treat books as disposable as magazines, there's already a solution for you that is infinitely cheaper than a Kindle: The Library.

John, those are fair arguments. Of course, I haven't seen an e-Reader that will take the place of a book. I just want one that could. Books seem awfully wasteful, even though we're used to them culturally.

Maybe the "which memory" card problem would be easily solved by the network? I'm not so upset about searching for my media (like you would in a traditional library). I just hate that it takes up so much space in my house. Ugh.

Remember the old stereos in the 70's that were built into waist-high giant wooden cabinets (speakers and all)? Or what about the behemoth wooden contraptions that people call "entertainment centers" where you'd store your TV, stereo components, CD, albums, tapes, VHS, etc. That's how I see bookcases.

Now the "hi-fi" and all of its associated media fits in your back pocket. You can watch video in the palm of your hand, on your lap, or via a big picture box hanging on the the wall (flat screens) - again with media furniture being eliminated, or nearly so.

It's time for print media to do the same thing. I don't have any answers, just complaints, however. :-)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

The best part of the article was when he compared fantasies of Mac OS licensing with letters to Penthouse Forum.

Maybe insert the word "stoned" somewhere in there.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

I used to have a feed to Bad Astronomy.... deleted it a few months back. Seems it no longer posted much about Science and/or Atronomy. Got way too political. Not snark, political.

Bitchy even, Was that about the time it started caring about how many Diggs it got? Damn, could be.

I love Preshrunk

http://preshrunk.org/

all it is is about tshirts

You have no idea ;)

Im holding a grenade right now, and its either going to demolish the Discovery Institute, or its a dud. We will see in a few weeks. hehehehehehehe!

[/cryptic post]

Oooh...I cannot wait ERV, I cannot wait. Between you continously beating Behe like a baby seal, and Orac forcing the truth to come out on the Chad Jessop thing, I am *enthralled*.

This is better than even really horrid reality TV...because it's real, but not real stupid.

OOOhhh...next plot for a reality show..."Ten Scientists...Ten ID'ers, Ten Doctors, and Ten Homeopaths....Forty go in...one comes out"

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Amen brother, can I get a witness? My only conundrum with Scoble is this; how can a person so self absorbed and full of hubris look like this?

Surely, you must be exaggurating. Scoble probably was only mentioning Apple's PR practices in passing...

[clicks on link... reads Scoble's post...]

Oh crap. He WAS that bad.

Two kernel panics, and his next impulse isn't to boot from an install disk or a backup, but to lash out at Apple and, irrationally enough, its P.R. department.

Compare with Jeff Jarvis' infamous "Dell Hell" posts which was all about his experience with Dell's tech support and repair services.

(http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/cat_dell.html)

Jeff talked about his experience from the perspective of a customer. He never played the "I'm a member of the press" card, or the "I'm an important blogger" card. He only played the "I paid for this extended service contract" card.

He still caught flack from some people who thought he was trying to get special treatment from them. Which why I was about to give Scoble the benefit of the doubt, until his own words removed all doubt.

That Scoble guy sure is amusing. Always good for getting himself in the 'news'.

And I'm sure that Apple would kiss whichever body parts he wanted kissed if he had something to offer for them. But I guess it's much more profitable for them to suck up to the 'journalists' writing for actual Journals.

John,

The bitter irony here is that Scoble is whining about not getting free stuff. He should have bought AppleCare, and presumably didn't. That gets you better treatment, although it doesn't guarantee anything. So does paying http://www.apple.com/support/products/payperincident.html for a support incident ($49 for a personal Mac, and calling through this channel should raise the response level, even if it is or should be covered through warranty -- but perhaps he has bad third-party RAM -- we don't know). PodTech.net could purchase an AppleCare Help Desk Support http://www.apple.com/support/products/helpdesk.html contract.

So Apple premium support isn't a tangible item that comes in a box (actually it comes on paper). Demanding that Apple give you premium support which you haven't paid for is, despite the denials, demanding free 'stuff'.

I want to know how immature it is for a "thought leader" blogger to resort to "Screw you. Screw you. Screw you." in the most public and visible way he can manage for a support issue. You say that under your breath, or you curse loudly at home. Broadcasting it on a blog is an attack, which was the idea of this whole post.

Here we go:

What’s ironic is lots of other computer companies would LOVE to give me free stuff (I don’t take it) but Apple is the only company that’s never raised a PR finger to help me. Instead I feel so honored to spend my money on this crap. Why? Just to have a shiny machine?

So he's not really complaining about Apple Support (the ones responsible for dealing with this problem), but about Apple PR, the ones responsible for keeping "important" people happy -- this syncs up with the public ranting, above.

Damn... well said.

Generally I take Scoble with a grain of salt, but his little fit really did get under my skin. How can someone who spends so much time around computers not know that whatever happens with his particular shit is in no way representative of the company/brand/people, etc?

He can't. He does know. And you nailed it on the head - he's whining to glorify himself and, ideally, to get Apple to kiss his ass some.

I think you really nailed the proper attitude to have regarding all this as well, and personally, I appreciate it. When I was doing this blogging thing marginally successfully I always felt the same way - and I think that's really the way to be. Nothing soils a person worse than an overwrought sense of entitlement...

Even more sad irony: Scoble writes a lot of posts about having interviewed people whom he says are a lot smarter than he is. Likes to mention how much he learned from a particular interview.

I'd guess he's being very selective about what he retains. I'll also bet his hits are up. Mission accomplished?

Maurice:

BINGO...Scoble plays the "I'm just a big doof", but it's all bullshit in the end. If you read his shit long enough, and I don't recommend it, you realize there's a very specific cycle to it. Slam apple, praise apple, kiss some blogger ass, whine about bloggers, and on a regular basis, you'll see him cry about "mean comments", and how he's not going to take it anymore.

He'll also use major personal events for SERIOUS hit fodder, like when his mom died, he said he was going to be offline to deal with it, then posted like a motherfucker, with a large amount of it being about the quality of Verizon EVDO cards. His post rate didn't fucking blip. Then, when some poor pr schmuck calls him, he REAMS them for not "OMG" reading his blog and realizing he was in the midst of a tragedy. When I pointed out that reading his blog would not have prevented this, since he was posting like a motherfucker all throughout it, oh.my.god, was I just the devil incarnate? Hell yeah.

Whatever. he's really nice in person, and if you can get him to stop being Le Scoble, and start being Robert, he's an interesting guy. But Le Scoble? Whiny bitch fucktard persona to the max.

But then again, his livelihood requires him to be in the public eye, or rather the "blogger eye" constantly, so he kind of has to set aside any consideration other than attracting attention to himself.

He'll probably be at macworld this year, and oh, won't that be fucking surreal.

So if Apple has to give him free stuff every time he has a kernel panic, that means Microsoft must give him free stuff every time he gets the Blue Screen of Death. So the question in my mind is: why doesn't he own the world by now?

John, thanks for adding some balance to yet another episode of Scoble's foolishness. And thanks for bringing some humility to the situation, something we see enough of in the blogosphere.

It would be fine if Robert comes to Macworld, but if Le Scoble, shows up, it won't be pretty...

"He should have bought AppleCare, and presumably didn't. That gets you better treatment, although it doesn't guarantee anything."

Mmm, now that sounds like a GREAT deal! So I pay several hundred pounds in order to MAYBE get some extra help on the whim of Apple... yeah, uh huh, I'll have some of that... :)

Chris, a word of advice: never become a salesman ;)

"Whatever. he's really nice in person, and if you can get him to stop being Le Scoble, and start being Robert, he's an interesting guy. But Le Scoble? Whiny bitch fucktard persona to the max."

Totally. I like Robert a lot, but sometimes it's like some EvulBlogger version takes over and... boom! Where, as you say, is my fucking latte.

The idea of pulling a Scoble, and calling a company out for not fellating my ego? Dear god, I hope I've never even come close, and if it ever appears that I have, then it was either unintentional, or the stupid made me do it, and I apologize.

Never fear John. We've got your back on this one. If you ever stoop to this level, we'll be sure to keep you honest. Keep fighting the good fight. Batteries and moleskin are on the way.

Ian, yeah, that did show a rather odd view of what AppleCare is for. I *think* they meant ProCare, which does get you to the head of the line in the Apple Stores, etc, but is considerably cheaper than AppleCare, and not an extended warranty at all.

Jeff, I fixed your tags, (there's no BBCode, just html), and yeah, I figured that should I ever start pulling a Scoble, I'll have people buying plane tickets to come out and mock me relentlessly...and my wife will be leading the pack ;-)

Although I agreee with most of what you have written, Apple does give out the marketing that the MAcIntosh is so much more reliable than the PC. Having worked in a company who had both, this is not true. They are as good or as bad as the other depending how you look at it.

John, good to see you have't lost any of your sarcasm.

Jonathan...of COURSE they do, it's called "Marketing".

What, you expect them to say "Macintosh...even though we suck as much as anyone else, we're prettier"? The difference is, people with a clue understand it's hyperbole and blow it off. Scobleites insist it be the god's honest truth.

Well, truth be told, many more near-illiterates than Scoble - or Scobleites (love the term) - think it to be true too.

Bottom line is that he had a pint which got lost in his hyperbole.... Leopard was released a couple of months too soon.

Enough Mac users are waiting to upgrade that it makes any honest "fanboy" (as opposed to "fanboi") cringe over those last 3 Mac v PC commercials Apple released last week.

Admit it John - those IN YOUR FACE ads that have "the PC" guy admitting he reverted to XP make you just a bit uncomfortable in light of how barely acceptable Leopard is today - 4 months later than the original release date.

That was Robert's _real_ point... until Le Scoble (love that term too) emerged.

Dave, why would ads bother me? I don't personalize them, and honestly, unless it's coming from the Wii or my DVD player, the amount of television I watch can be measured in minutes per month.

Secondly, the "Mac OS X 10.5 was released a couple of months too soon" has been said about every release. Mac OS X 10.4 was unusable in my world until 10.4.3, Mac OS X 10.3.0 was odd, so was 10.2, 10.1 had a "HFS+ routines randomly truncate big files" bug, and so on, going back through every iteration of the Mac OS *ever*

I can say the same things about Vista, XP, Windows 2000, NT4, NT3.x, and so on.

You only get 'uncomfortable' over those ads if you take them as gospel. I don't, so I don't.

Actually, there's two features that make leopard a real bonus in my world, the fixes to mobile directory services, and the SNMP improvements. There's a few others, but those are the big ones. Our only reasons for waiting are some third party issues that are getting resolved by and by.

On 10.4.11, I've upgraded every Mac OS X 10.4 machine to it, no problems at all. But then, I'm a bit more sensible about upgrade planning than technophiles like Le Scoble.

Now, if we get into 200*9*, and people are still refusing, in huge numbers to upgrade, ala Vista today, that's more of an issue. But less than a month after the release? Please.

Well penned, man!

I never comment... but you whipped yurself up a beauty of a retort. Thank you for penning a nice little balloon popper!

"If I have one advantage, it's that I can type fast, and read faster, and I'm a decent sysadmin."

That's three advantages. (Sorry, I had to.)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

The bill, H.R.3043, also sought to bolster the budgets of the departments of Labor and Education, and carried a request for a total of $150.7 billion. Since its introduction in July, Bush has said he would veto the bill because it overshot his own budget recommendations. (From The Scientist, complaining about the veto.)

I see no reason to believe that the President vetoed this bill because of something related to the Bible - or even because of the NIH funding at all.

(For that matter, Federal education funding doesn't make state curriculums and education any better. You can blame the sorry state of science teaching on teachers [who are not trained in science and don't love it] and school boards.

That and kids have for the most part always viewed learning math as punishment. Most people aren't inclined to view abstract mathematical manipulation as pleasant.

Despite that, of course, Federal education spending is vastly up since 2000. The President has been typically approving of spending on Education like a drunken sailor, to no great effect. Oddly, this spending had no provisions for special "faith based" education or hostility to science or math education, that I'm aware of.

I must snarkily suggest that your assumption that the President's every action is based on religion or hostility to science is itself "faith based".)

Sig,

Take a moment to review the attitude of this administration towards science as a whole...He supports the teaching of ID on an equal level with evolution, in spite of the the utter lack of proper science and peer review. His inane attitude towards stem cell research, which is based entirely on his religious views.

He complains about the budget being too large, yet, oddly, I don't see him putting any of his faith-based pork on the chopping block.

They've been caught out removing parts of scientific papers they don't like.

(Federal funding for schools is not even a part of this post, so nice strawman there, by the way. However, I'll bet you a dollar that if 100% of that increase was for school vouchers and religious private schools, he'd praise that to high heaven. Funny how mr. "we can't spend like a drunken sailor" didn't discover his veto pen until his party lost power, even though the republican budgets went up on a regular basis too.)

Perhaps if this country started naming streets, buildings and the like after scientists instead of people who play games really well, and if our national leaders viewed science as something worthwhile, that would, you know, "trickle down".

But please...this is one of the most anti-science administrations on record with really one notable pseudo-exception: Bush backs sending us to Mars.

He didn't really budget for it, so we'll try to do it on the cheap. Thanks a pantload George.

But Bush has spent millions and millions on increasing the influence of religion, and fundamentalist christianity in particular, over our irreligiously designed government, and every time he bitches about "fat" in the budget, he's never talking about that.

I also have yet to see him say, about any form of scientific research funding, from theoretical to medical: "These items are critical to our future as a nation, and as a people, and we cannot afford to cut spending on the very things that allow us to find ways to cure disease and advance human knowledge."

Yet, he's quite passionate in defending every fucking dime he spends keeping his pet fundies happy.

So the above, along with his nigh-continuous voicing of his faith in "The Magic Man in the Sky" is rather nice evidence of his hostility towards anything that might contradict what the magic man's book says.

We won't even get into the republican congress's attitude toward's science. That was even worse.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Perhaps they could be bothered in principle but they're just _able_ to seriously think about science.

"Never attribute to malice what you could attribute to incompetence", or so.

Yes! I'd vote for Joe Walsh in a heartbeat! The Rocky Mountain way IS better than the way we have!

Can we officially start a write-in campaign?

The Nova special on ID in Dover, PA that aired this week was excellent, by the way.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

JD's already rolling ten-sided dice for a new venue to spew forth from. His latest column at PC Rag suggests he may be hankering for the days when he had the back page of Macworld magazine. Good times.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

I'm a blogger (wifinetnews.com) who proofs his own work and I'm not even as incomprehensible as Murphy is on a site that might expect to have some minimum editing requirements.

"new user features raising the bar for Microsoft’s next effort": That'll be great. I'm looking forward to Windows Rainier edition in 2012.

umm, John? I was actually praising you - you know as the only reviewer I read who actually noticed DTrace.

Now about ZFS vs time machine - here's the thing: TM wasn't quite ready when Tiger got released but has hung about ready to go ever since. i.e. it preceeds ZFS chronologically and is now in the product.

ZFS, however, does time machine better than time machine does. In other words you can expect the next release to use ZFS in the back end instead of all the silly symlinks etc used in TM. i.e. the next generation may look the same and be named the same, but will actually be a couple of zfs one liners.

The fun part here will be watching MS try to cope. Think they'll adopt ZFS? if not, they'll be forced to match all the complexity in TM - and that will be a hoot.

Paul, give me a break. You called every single review out there "My Pretty Pony Reviews Leopard", or close to it, including Siracusa's. Now, I rarely agree much with Siracusa, but a lack of technical depth? NFW man. In fact, you obviously didn't even try to google it too hard, or read Siracusa's review, or you would have seen that he spent a LOT of time on DTrace. Here, read it yourself: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/5

You also can't just suck it up and admit that your statement about Time Machine and ZFS was wrong, so now you have to dodge. Okay, fine, but you dive into inane trying to defend it:

Now about ZFS vs time machine - here's the thing: TM wasn't quite ready when Tiger got released but has hung about ready to go ever since. i.e. it preceeds ZFS chronologically and is now in the product.

ZFS, however, does time machine better than time machine does. In other words you can expect the next release to use ZFS in the back end instead of all the silly symlinks etc used in TM. i.e. the next generation may look the same and be named the same, but will actually be a couple of zfs one liners.

The fun part here will be watching MS try to cope. Think they'll adopt ZFS? if not, they'll be forced to match all the complexity in TM - and that will be a hoot.

Freaking hilarious Welch. Nice work.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Ah, but have you read this, and additionally, seen these? You must. Now.

Hmmm... my last comment was never approved. Let's try this again...

if you liked that link, you'll like this one more (and follow the links to the Flickr slideshow w/ its comments--you won't regret it: http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121 .

I'd love to know how many of her colleagues are encouraged enough by this to step up to the plate. We need more real scientists out there with gumption.

OK, here's try #3 to post a comment here--will it work if it doesn't have any links or urls?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

We've all come a long way since Kitty Genovese.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Hey - I assume you read Pharyngula, PZ Myers' weblog. If you don't, do so! You'll probably enjoy it, lots of good smackdown.

Academic blogs in general are pretty interesting, I find.

I've also become a pretty big science blog junkie of late, though have followed some like BadAstronomy for a while. Pharyngula is my most frequent visit these days, though, because of the frequency of updates from PZ, and the breadth of topics he discusses.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

If you can ever get your butt up here I'll let you *drive* my E-type.

Your vibrator analogy is spot-on. There is nothing so orgasmically satisfying as nailing a shift, or executing a perfect turn on a lonely mountain road, while the engine music soars and roars off the rock walls. That shove at the lower back as the reciprocal motion of the engine is transformed into rotational power by the crankshaft and all that torque pushes rubber over asphalt....

Ferraris are just one flavor of the full spectrum of automotive experience. (For a self-wrencher like myself, they are something of a non-starter since Maranello builds their cars to exclude do-it-yourselfers... not to mention the prices of everything.) Most cars are just appliances, and some have big engines and can go fast... in a straight line. But a few are truly engineered for pleasurable driving. They HANDLE. They can go fast, but they also turn in, they have predictable over/neutral/under-steering. They involve the driver. Those cars are few and far between, but are worth the effort to find, and hang onto.

--chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org

Go figure... males enjoy a finely tuned and balanced motor.

Females enjoy an unbalanced motor.

Big boys play with big toys. I'd love to have a Ferrari, or any other fine piece of Italian or German engineering that costs more than most people earn in a year.

"male version of a vibrator"...

So, how much was the bill to clean up the car after you were in it?

:)

Nice. I meet Web. You meet his Ferrari!

KB, I kinda work for Web, so I see him a lot.

Shawn, Ferraris are self-cleaning. They have to be.

Who is Web?

Which is why i bought a new Audi R8 and love it...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(Nelson)
Ha, ha!
(/Nelson)

--chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org

Within the first week on a new job in 1998, I spilled half a can of ginger ale on the boss's PowerBook (which must have been a Wall Street G3). The screen went all staticky, then dark, just like in a movie where we lose communication with the outpost right as they're being torpedoed. I was terrified.

I'd been hired as a production designer, but also because I knew a little bit about fixing software problems.

But I shut down, unplugged, pulled the keys, alcohol-swabbed everything visible, and let the thing dry out for a day. I got lucky.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Somehow, I don't see that happening at Microsoft.

It rather looks like Microsoft "encourages" employees to give 20% of their outside Real Life to their Microsoft job project. One wonders how long it takes for people to get tired of that.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

I should point out that September is a five week month under NPD reporting (as are March, June, and December) and so all of your percentage analysis in this post, and some of your analysis in previous posts, is off.

The Wii, for example, just sells 100k a week for the last three months. They're supply constrained, not sales constrained. Under those conditions one could argue their five month post-Xmas 'slump' actually represented a total production of 75k with the usual summer fluctuations (Xmas was stockpiling, of course). They then increased total supply/month starting in July to 100k and have sold that ever since.

See, here for per week per month numbers and here for per month numbers.

Wednesday,

Oh, the fact that NPD numbers are kind of bogus anyway, as they really cherry-pick their sources is another issue too. But within themselves, they're okay.

The five - week thing is a factor of having 52 weeks in a 12 month year. At some point, you have to deal with February, and 4 extra weeks. So some long, some not. That's just part of the numbers.

I'm really not trying to do in-depth analysis here. I mean, that would require far more work than I care to do. This whole thing started as a way to kind of point out to people that no, blind adherence to the "More Tech is all that counts" religion of Microsoft and Sony is not actually the thing that most people want from their games. That would be "fun". Simply continuing the same paradigm started a decade or so ago with prettier pitchers and sound was never going to do a great job of increasing the overall console sales market.

Nintendo took a real risk, and it's paid off. The only reason I kept doing it was that I just got used to it. This is about as fluff of a sales analysis series as you can get.

Well… they get about 64% of sales and adjust for the remainder, and are used by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo as well and Peter Moore (Microsoft exec) quoted them as being amazingly accurate against Microsoft's internal numbers. VGChartz, on the other hand, just basically makes their numbers up and uses NPD to adjust afterwards. So I find their numbers trustworthy enough.

Oh I know why they have five weeks, I'm just saying stuff like this:

"Wii: Up close to 24%"

isn't true. The Wii sold the exact same 100k/week—there's just an extra week. That's all I was asking for, doing the slight bit of math to show sales trends by week. It's kind of misleading otherwise.

What's interesting (to me) is that without the Wii people would be saying gaming is dead. The Sixth Generation of consoles sold around 170 million. Against current Wii excluded sales the Xbox360/PS3 may (may!) hit 100 million in sales and I kinda doubt that. A bloody disaster, in other words.

The Wii, on the other hand, is doing PS2 numbers. I wouldn't be surprised to see it get over 100 million and possibly 120 million. The Wii, thank god, saved next generation gaming because Microsoft/Sony fucked up hardcore by not launching at $299 as their sole SKU. Cough NeoGeo, Saturn, 3DO cough. Idiots.

I'm with you on the 'more fun' part, certainly, the Wii is just so much more appealing than prettier graphics (I wouldn't turn them down, but the Wiimote beats graphics easily) and I suspect without the Wii gaming would be taking (as I outlined above) a major hit overall.

What's even more amusing is all the big gaming companies (EA, Square-Enix, Capcom, Sega, etc…) saying that they're focusing more on the Wii now and stuff like Dragon Quest IX being exclusive to the DS (hence Dragon Quest X probably being on the Wii) which is utterly insane if you look at the last decade of gaming & third parties relationship with Nintendo.

Insanely awesome, of course, because I have no real intention of buying anything other than a Wii :).

You have a Wii, right? What games are you looking forward to?

On the NPD numbers, were I to look week to week overall, yes, you're correct. I'm doing this more as a comparison *only* within NPD's monthly releases. But like I said, the real purpose of this is a bit of a "neener-neener" to the techboy dick-waving on the other systems.

On the rest, you're dead perfectly right. Because everyone had locked themselves into the same general style of input device, it was almost impossible to do something truly new. Everyone had hammers, so all games were nails.

It also crippled casual gaming. I TRIED playing Prince of Persia: Two Thrones on a PS2. It SUCKED. I felt like I was studying for a test, not playing a game. But the Wii version? Dude, I play the hell out of that thing. Been taking a break from it, but yeah, had no problems. Same thing with Twilight Princess. I can't imagine doing some of the advanced combat moves with a "normal" controller.

As far as what kind of games? I want games that push that controller even farther. Sword fighting games that allow you to really use the Wiimote/Nunchuck to a much bigger extent. I'd love to see more games that avoid the buttons as much as possible and strictly rely on the movements.

I want to see how far you can push that controller, and maybe even some third party controllers. Dude, can you imagine a sword fight game using Nerf swords that were controllers? So you could actually fight your opponent? That would kick the shit out of online play. "Yeah, Xbox Live, Big Fucking Deal. WHAM! Now THAT, is a head shot."

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Maybe you should have gotten the 27"?

If you're already sitting far enough away that you can't see the lines, adding more resolution doesn't make any difference. For me, the epiphany came when I first watched a DVD or digital cable through either the S-video or component video inputs. Over twice the horizontal resolution, and no more dot crawl at every sharp edge due to the luminance and chrominance information being inextricably mixed together. After 40 years of watching composite video (the AV inputs are the same thing, just not up-converted to channel 3) THAT was akin to a religious experience!

You're not going to have an HDTV ephiphany on a 26" TV. It's just too small. How far away are you sitting from this thing? If you're sitting farther away than 5' you need a 42". Under 5', I'd say minimum 37". 26", that's a computer monitor not a TV.

I too, am waiting for my "moment". I just picked up a HD-DVD player for my Xbox 360. After watching SD-DVD using composite cables, I was expecting a major uptick in image quality that would help me justify a new, bigger set for the living room. What I got when I played my first HD-DVD was a definate improvement, and a feeling of total disappointment in regards to my expectations. My wife wasn't impressed either, and so I'll be keeping my current LG 37 inch LCD exactally where it is... There goes my plans for the man cave...

Composite cables? Composite cables will not transmit HD (neither will s-video). Did you mean component cables?

You know, from your writeup it's not clear...

Do you have an HD source? An HD set displaying standard sources or even DVD isn't the epiphany; it's an HD set with an HD source.

Upconverted SD or ED (DVD) sources won't be impressive.

Oh, I know. This post was really me poking fun at the people who are WAY too enhusiastic about OMGHD.

As far as the size goes...there's no fucking way in HELL i'm paying over a grand for a television. Not unless it comes with HD blowjobs from Catherine Zeta Jones...in *person*.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

You sir are a very sore winner. And Apple still completely fumbled the whole 3rd party app thing. If they had simply made this announcement when the iPhone was released, they could have avoided a whole lot of hullaballoo. The PR for this was handled in a completely amateur fashion, and the blame for all the ill effects can be laid at Apple's door.

Thanks for refuting all those dumbasses, Wingfield included. Sometime it really seems that someone locked that whole bunch of people in an echo chamber.

Anyway, from http://d5.allthingsd.com/20070530/steve-jobs-ceo-of-apple/

"1:15 p.m.: Is the iPhone’s platform closed? And if it is, will it be open to developers in the future? Jobs says it’s a security issue, but Apple is working to find a way to allow developers to build applications for it. Jobs says he doesn’t want the iPhone to be “one of those phones that crashes a few times a day.” He adds: “We would like to solve this problem and if you could just be a little more patient with us, we’ll do it.”

He said it then and said it again about native apps elsewhere after the iPhone (and its Web2.0 apps) was released. (I'm trying to find those articles)

DBL: Apple does not promise things before it believes it can do them (unlike MS with Longhorn). Jobs would not promise an iPhone SDK until he was sure Apple was going to deliver (like he just did today). But Jobs did say that Apple was working on it from day one, if you were listening. (I'm still looking for the articles, which were on June 29 and 30th.)

I hope the "ill effect" would be that the hackers gain some humility through this. But, alas, your response, if typical, shows that will not be the case. So you sir are a very sore loser.

So by this reasoning, developers will only be able to program for iPhone/iPod Touch using Macs? Not PCs, or other operating systems? If true (and I don't think it is), why would Apple impose such a limitation? The iPhone/iPod Touch are not restricted to Mac users.

DBL: Apple does not promise things before it believes it can do them (unlike MS with Longhorn). Jobs would not promise an iPhone SDK until he was sure Apple was going to deliver (like he just did today). But Jobs did say that Apple was working on it from day one, if you were listening. (I'm still looking for the articles, which were on June 29 and 30th.)

I hope the "ill effect" would be that the hackers gain some humility through this. But, alas, your response, if typical, shows that will not be the case. So you sir are a very sore loser.

@question - Yeah, I imagine that will be the only way to develop apps for the iPhone. That limitation will be imposed because the development tools will be XCode, and the apps are coded in Cocoa and Obj-C. You will be able to upload from either, but development will be done on the Mac. I see nothing wrong with this.

DBL...I'm a Sore Winner? BAAAHAHAHAHAHAA...dear lord, I haven't seen that since grade school. Screw that. I was right, and more importantly, I gave it a bit of thought as to WHY it might play out the way it has. I wasn't alone in that line of thought.

Of course, now that you can't whine about that, you whine about the PR, which of course translates too "APPLE DIDN'T KISS MY ASS". Pfah.

Question...The issue here is, as e said, one of "HOW" you develop applications. If it's using Cocoa frameworks, then while you in theory could develop from other platforms, it would be a pita.

Yep, you called it right, John. I thought this would likely be the scenario, too -- they would release an SDK but not until they were good and ready.

Some of Jobs' announcement is fluff -- "vibrant ... community ... revolutionary" -- but this is true enough:

"It will take until February to release an SDK because we’re trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once—provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc."

What Jobs -- unsurprisingly -- didn't mention, but what we can hardly forget, is that ISE already found a problem in Safari:

http://www.securityevaluators.com/iphone/

And, since Jobs' mentioned "privacy", too, there's this issue:

http://blog.dave.cridland.net/?p=32

Mobile phones, as they become both more powerful and more popular, look like they might become an increasingly attractive target. The iPhone launch date was not not the time to rush out a half-baked kit for third-parties just because some people were too impatient to wait.

One suspects the iPhone is already running a version of Leopard (not Tiger). And, again, I think you were spot-on to say: "it was silly to think that you'd get an SDK prior to Leopard."

Nokia's opportunistic sloganizing looks silly now, too. Nokia makes some nice phones, but, in comparison with the changes Apple have brought to the industry, Nokia have nothing to be proud of. Never mind that I could have some (often pretty overpriced and underperforming) third-party applications right now on a Nokia; Nokia hasn't itself offered anything as paradigm-changing as Apple. Nor has it been pushing out regular updates to its phones' software at all let alone via a well-thought-out update mechanism such as iTunes. Their business model, and that of the operators, has been push out phones, leave 'em be, and sell the customer a new one in one to two years with the real hardware cost hidden in a contract price.

I tend to side with DBL on this one.

For example, if I were Steve, I'd have mentioned this at WWDC. Will Apple allow third-party developers? "We plan to, once we overcome some technical obstacles." And leave it at that.

Perhaps also have a session at WWDC where Apple says, "If you want to write applications for the iPhone, here are the technologies we recommend you use and here are the technologies you should avoid."

As developers, we're an understanding group because we've been there and done that. If Apple says, "Yes, we are planning on opening this up at some point in the future." that's good enough for me. I can understand there are technical issues and contractual issues and a bunch of other issues that need to be dealt with. But the fact that Apple is planning on opening it up (versus something like, "Well, your input on this issue is appreciated...") means that I can start doing things--designing model classes and such--knowing full well that someday I'll be able to implement them.

By the way, "mark", I wish you luck finding it. Pretty much all levels of Apple have said, "We're considering this," which can mean many different things. I can't go to my company and say, "I want to develop this product" based on what Apple has released to the public so far.

For example, if I were Steve, I'd have mentioned this at WWDC. Will Apple allow third-party developers? "We plan to, once we overcome some technical obstacles." And leave it at that.

Perhaps also have a session at WWDC where Apple says, "If you want to write applications for the iPhone, here are the technologies we recommend you use and here are the technologies you should avoid."

As developers, we're an understanding group because we've been there and done that. If Apple says, "Yes, we are planning on opening this up at some point in the future." that's good enough for me. I can understand there are technical issues and contractual issues and a bunch of other issues that need to be dealt with. But the fact that Apple is planning on opening it up (versus something like, "Well, your input on this issue is appreciated...") means that I can start doing things--designing model classes and such--knowing full well that someday I'll be able to implement them.

By the way, "mark", I wish you luck finding it. Pretty much all levels of Apple have said, "We're considering this," which can mean many different things. I can't go to my company and say, "I want to develop this product" based on what Apple has released to the public so far.

Hey Peter,

I sure hope you didn't go to your company asking to develop a piece of software around Microsoft's shouted-aloud promises for Vista nee Longhorn. Ha ha ha!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Actually, the "A-listers" are but the tiniest fraction of the blogosphere; most of the blogosphere is made up of MySpace blogs and LiveJournal. Of course, the A-listers conveniently ignore that; I recall at one point a few years ago Scoble was crowing about how there were N million blogs, when LiveJournal alone had that many actively-used accounts.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

of course they called you from work ANYWAY!! haaaaaaaaa
congrats to both of you :)

Bite me :-P

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

um... get back to your honeymoon.

--chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org

I am back ya goof. You think I'd be posting if I wasn't?

"We're not going to move, in my opinion, to a world where everything is done on a very thin client."

Yeah, because that worked *so* *well* for Sun. While you're at it, have you considered invading Russia in the winter?

On the plus side, well, Ballmer's not entirely wrong.

"Open source", as a "movement", really is a bunch of marginal fanatics, from everything I've seen (and I say this as someone who's run omglinuxomg for well over a decade now, and been exposed to the constant flood of "movement" spew the entire time).

And the X-Box is a good console; I don't think I'd consider it a me-too, as I would the Zune.

Sigvald, that completely ignores open source projects run by adults who aren't freaks, such as Apache, Mono, Samba, Nagios, and dozens of others. The problem is, Ballmer is the only legitmate voice of Microsoft, whereas the Stallmanites are marginal freakboys more interested in how "moral" you are rather than putting out good software.

The XBox was developed only because Sony and others were making a ton of money in that market. The featureset and overall design were nothing but a shot at Sony. The Wii is the last really original idea in Consoles for a decade or so, and it shows. Does anyone other than geeks in dickwaving contest really give a fuck about pixel count and polygon speed? No. They just want to play games and have fun. Neither Sony or Microsoft seem to get this. So yes, the Xbox is a me-too product. Me-too to the Playstation.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

You, sir, are the wind beneath my wings.

Dude, that's SO scary...

John, you probably meant vocal whiny MINORITY in that last paragraph. Other than that, you nailed it. I call these your STFU articles, and you are a masterly bastard at this category. Keep it up.

DOH! thanks for the catch Suman. Fixed.

I bought the iPhone once I knew it could be unlocked (since you can't add an iPhone to an AT&T corporate account-- I had to unlock my iPhone to use it with AT&T. How's that for a backwards cell company?) I understood the risk that an Apple update might break it, and right now I'm cool with the tradeoffs in running older firmware so I can carry one phone instead of two. Third-party apps? I have a couple, and they're cute but not indispensable. (I might feel different about my terminal app if I could figure out how to hit control-- editing text files without the ability to save 'em is less than useful.) Ringtones? Whatever. If AT&T would let me use my iPhone with my corporate account I'd have no need to unlock the beastie at all.If worst comes to worst and the iPhone bursts into flames I'm out $400 and I can figure out what to do next.

I wish AT&T sucked less. I wish Apple's update were easier to work around. But even if I can't update my iPhone, even if my iPhone quits working altogether-- no babies died.

I tend to agree with those who are upset with Apple for removing the capabilities they added with their iPhones. That said, I think the sentence that makes the most sense is, "Just take the fucking thing back."

You bought an iPhone thinking it was one thing when it wasn't. This may be due to evil brainwashing by Apple but whatever. But if the iPhone isn't serving your needs, take it back. At the very least, if Apple gets a few hundred-thousand iPhones returned because it isn't serving people's needs, that'll send a far clearer message to Apple than all the blogs on the Internet.

Of course, if Apple only gets back a few hundred, that'll tell them something, too.

I didn't buy an iPhone on Day 1 because there was no way I was going to pay $600 for a phone for which I couldn't develop applications (I have a wonderfully useful--for myself--application in mind). When the price dropped to $399, I was very tempted. $399 and there was a way to develop applications (though not officially supported).

After watching Apple's behavior, though, I'm pretty sure I'll wait on an iPhone until there's an official way to develop applications. In the meantime, maybe I'll start playing with OpenMoko and Linux or hang out for the next generation of Palm's software.

Peter writes:

I tend to agree with those who are upset with Apple for removing the capabilities they added with their iPhones.

After thinking about this for a while -- and I'm someone who has a fair number of third-party apps stuffed on his iPhone, and still hasn't run the 1.1.1 upgrade -- I don't agree. I'm sympathetic to those who are upset about it, but is Apple taking away features that any of us expected to be on the phone when we bought it? They certainly aren't features that Apple ever claimed to support. It'd be great if Apple didn't do things that screwed over the hackers, sure, but the fact that this update does seem to do exactly that isn't prima facie evidence of malicious intent. The iPhone SDK may not exist outside of Apple because when you publish the API, you're pretty much committing to not radically breaking it from that point on -- and that may be a commitment Apple hasn't wanted to make.

The simple fact is that if you install the 1.1.1 update and end up with an iPhone that only works with AT&T and only works with Apple's installed applications, what you have is... exactly the phone you bought, with exactly the features that you were told it had. Again, I'm sympathetic to people upset at losing the hacked-in functionality, and I think it's important in the long run for Apple to make an official SDK. (I suspect if this happens, you should look to the T-Mobile Sidekick for an idea of how it'll work--i.e., don't expect applications that aren't approved by Apple to be available for it.) But Apple isn't betraying anyone's trust with this update. If you "bought an iPhone thinking it was one thing when it wasn't," with all due respect, it's pretty much your fault.

I do find it sociologically interesting how Apple tends to get a lot of hatred and vitriol directed at them when they things that, well, nobody would bat an eye at from other companies. When Sony updated the PSP software to make it difficult to hack, there was hardly a huge uprising. This phenomena started with the iPhone even before the thing was released; I saw more than one "why the iPhone sucks and will fail" article predicated on all the things the iPhone won't do that no other phone does, either, except that in the iPhone's case those were critical omissions. What exactly is it about Apple that brings this out?

Oh, wow, thanks for writing this. You saved me from having to do it. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the 1.1.1 update has just gotten worse over the past few days. (TUAW, 9to5Mac, I'm looking at you.)

I bought an iPhone on launch day. I fully knew then that it was a closed device. I knew what features it had and what it didn't. I bought it because I felt that it was the device on the market that best met my needs. It doesn't perfectly meet them, but then no device does. I've been watching the hacking stuff because I think it's interesting to see what they've been able to do with it. But nothing that's been accomplished so far has been compelling enough for me to do anything myself. Honestly, the most compelling thing for me was the game developed for it.

Peter, if you're going to wait on *Palm* to deliver anything beyond Windows Mobile devices, good luck with that. If that's your strategy, I highly recommend Nokia.

What pisses people off is that the damned thing does exactly what it was advertised to do. I don't know WHY this is a bad thing, but for a small group of squabs, it really is. Whatever.

On the corporate account thing, I kind of get that. Well, I get not recommending it. Not selling it, not so much. There are things that a lot of corporate users would need that the iPhone doesn't do, and stupidity is just as common in business as anywhere else.

That's a good point Nadyne. It's not that I am *against* people hacking it. On the contrary, i think it's kinda cool.

But the insistence that Apple some how support something they've said they are not going to support is just inane and entitlementism writ large.

I'm also really tired of the propogation of the first ScobleMyth: "To be successfull, geeks and technophiles must love your product, therefore you must design for them."

that's just the stupid right there.

Man, I'm glad someone said this.

Those hackers are impatient, arrogant, and believe that they know better than Apple, who has Steve Jobs and a marketing department that obviously does nothing but scheme to irritate developers and hackers.

On the corporate account thing, I kind of get that. Well, I get not recommending it. Not selling it, not so much. There are things that a lot of corporate users would need that the iPhone doesn't do, and stupidity is just as common in business as anywhere else.

It's like anything else-- advertise what it'll do and let corporate users/IT decide if it fits. What I want is a way for a non-technical manager to easily read and reply to IMAP email, and the iPhone is perfect for that niche-- but AT&T knows better, it seems.

Summing up John's piece:

"I will reprint every paragraph of your article, misinterpret what you wrote, and then explain why my straw man was wrong."

I own a hacked iPhone, and I actually agree with the general gist of John's article. If you hack your phone, don't whine. It's just that the whole article reads like one of these /. posts complaining about how Artie MacStrawman is such an asshole for claiming that Macs can not possibly be hacked. How many of the people John complains about actually exist?

Personally, I knew I was not going to install an Apple-provided update or bother Apple's support if something went wrong the day I hacked my phone, and I think most people who hacked their iPhones realized that, too. Frankly, I suspect most people complaining about bricked iPhones don't even own one, and just like to complain about Apple in general.

Oh give me a break LKM. Damned near every site on the Mac web has an article whining that mean old Apple isn't supporting stuff they never said they'd support.

Macworld, The Mac Observer, etc.

As well, there's quite a few people taking their hacked phones to Apple stores demanding support. Do a little research on it, and you'll see.

As well, I didn't reprint every paragraph of Rob's article, some of it was too repititious to bother. However, I'm curious, exactly what strawman did I raise? Do you mean to seriously tell me that the geek/technophile crowd is not being a bunch of whiny bitches about this, or perpetuating the first myth of Scoble, and thinking that without their support, a product is doomed?

I knew if I were patient, John would write this article, because it needed to be said and he's the right guy to do it.

I doubt most of the whiners will stop, since they won't get just how entitled they actually are.

Excellent post.

I have grown bored with the blogosphere screaming and howling and ranting about the "bricking of the iPhone". The number of phones affected represents perhaps, what, 0.01 percent of the iPhones sold todate? So I definitely resonate with John's "vocal whiny minority" remark. Except, I think it was understatement.

And I can't help but compare the current tenor of the bitching blogosphere with the same crowd at the inception of the iPod. You would have thought that the iPod would be the death of Apple. The gall! Trying to sell a music player for the price of a small PC (keyboard and monitor, included). But, 110 million iPods later, the jury is pretty much in.

Now, the same pundits are blogging the same FUD about the iPhone. Too expensive. Too limited. Too Apple. The arrogance!

The news is that the techie, propellerhead, pundits (who are apparently unaware) have become irrelevant.

One million iPhones sold in 74 days. If anyone were listening to the FUD-rakers, Apple couldn't have sold a dozen phones. But, thankfully, nobody is listening -- except the other residents of the echo chamber.

Well for those of you with short memories, just a few years ago Apple was on the ropes and about to go bust, written off by everyone except the loyal Apple "core" of users, who stuck with all the flaky idosyncracies of max os 7.5 - 9 and then putting up with grief and pain - and considerable financaial investment - when X came out. Yes it was a bold move, and yes Jobs and Ives started to make great, designed products from the boiled sweet imac onwards. BUT let no one forget it was loyal mac users who kept the whole thing going - keeping on buying Apple products and taking daily mental hammering from 90 percent of other computer users for staying with and using Apple. So it was that the loyal Apple user was adventurous and innovative, and if it werent for the many "hackers" and third party developers that frankly made the whole Apple experience tolerable in the dark bad days, then Apple would not be around now. So OF COURSE we think the iphone is a mac. Just look at the history. And by the way you can make the hacked iphone a very tolerable mini portable mac. Luvya.

pezki, I fail to see what your "rally the troops" cry has to do with the simple reality that an iPhone is not a Mac, never has been, never will be, and if you think you can make a a hacked iPhone a tolerable portable Mac, then show me you saving a 5,000 word document to an AFP automount in an AD/OD magic triangle environment.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Just before I went in for shoulder surgery #2 at the end of August, the boyfriend (finally) purchased a television. (We'd hadn't had one before.) While I was under the knife, he found himself in a Target that had a Wii in stock, so he jumped on it. He enjoyed my recovery much more than I did, since he spent the whole time with his Wii. I haven't tried it yet, since swinging things is officially Not A Good Idea just now.

I'd be surprised if we didn't end up owning an Xbox 360, since Grand Theft Auto doesn't seem to be coming to the Wii any time soon. But it does have the exclusive MySims, which I see we own, but I haven't played it yet.

I admit that now that Halo 3 is out, I'm thinking about getting an Xbox 360.

But only thinking. The price will have to hit $300 before I bite. And by then I'll be able to buy a used copy of Halo 3 for cheap. (I noticed in the store it's $60! Woah!)

HALO3 will help some, for sure. I'd be refusing to buy one, but finally broke down for H3 (and, in two months, Assassin's Creed).

So I started hunting round for a Wii in a bricks n mortar store a month or so ago. I didn't want to devote a lot of my life to finding one, so it took a while.

I turned up at Circuit City in San Jose on Sunday morning, 20 min before opening time, as one of those tracker sites said they had stock.

30 people queued up before opening time, and they sold out of everything before I left the store with MP:3 and a couple of accessories.

The problem is, how many people like you are there who really WANT Halo 3 and don't already have an Xbox?

Ordinarily, I like seeing the underdog come out on top, and since the only joke Bill Gates ever told was the one about Microsoft being the second-largest software company in Redmond, Washington, I like that continuing to be the case. BUT...if either the xBox or PS3 had achieved the popularity they were supposed to, the format war would have been resolved in Favor of Blu-Ray by now and that evil abortion HD-DVD would have found its deserved place in the dustbin of history. Instead, it's going to accomplish exactly what RCA's Capacitive Video Disc did: Fail, and ensure the failure of the Laserdisc as well.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Nice post, 100% agreed. Of course I'm sure its driving from a revenue perspective as creating PDFs on Windows is painful without Adobe where as the Mac its pretty not required unless your doing serious PDF creation as the built in works perfectly well.

Oh, it's definitely revenue - driven CJ. However, the problem is, that on the Mac, the Acrobat team does no marketing at all. They leave it up to the CS team, who has better things to market. I mean seriously, pushing Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Premiere, et al, you know, apps designed by people who like the Mac community has to be tons nicer than pushing a throwaway app done by a team whose decision-makers don't give a rat's ass about the platform, and have no problem spreading falsehoods to justify their refusal to invest a little time and money into making Acrobat a good Mac OS X application, and actually marketing the damned thing.

I do however fully expect them to announce the end of all Office integration for Acrobat on the Mac in 2008, and I'll further bet that the reason given is that "Microsoft removed the only possible way to do it". Because if they don't, and they say "Oh, we'll just use AppleScript" and they deliver a ton of improvements, then they have to answer why they weren't using AppleScript since at least Office 2004*. As we've seen, they are not so good at the honesty thing.

*prior to Office 2004, Word's AppleScript dictionary was pretty much broke, so that was not in fact a valid option at that time.

All true. But the sad part is I'm not sure which is worse: Adobe's revenue issue or Microsoft's politics issue. Office 2008 for the Mac, while a welcome upgrade, it painting that politics line once again fo