Dumb bloggers and the commenters who call them out, episode No. 324: Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers posted a piece called “Take that, Apple TV: Smart TVs twice as popular as dedicated streaming boxes.”

Of course, the headline is traffic bait:

“Roku boxes and Apple TV streaming devices may be on everyone’s mind, but smart TVs with internet apps are actually a lot more popular.”

Oh, Roku, yeah, you too — TAKE ALL THESE UNIT SALES, BITCHES! 

Anyway, Roettgers needs to fill space, so he takes the opportunity to indicate that, because smart TVs are selling better, they’re “winning.” But then he says:

“Of course, one should note that owning a device isn’t the same as using it.”

Yes, “one” should, Janko. 

“Only 69 percent of Smart TVs are connected to the internet…”

Still, that’s 69 percent! That means a huge majority of smart TV owners are using the smart parts of their TVs, right? 

Right? 

Oh, no, that’s wrong. Let “Dave” tell you how wrong. But first, let me digress:

It’s currently fashionable for the bloggerati — for instance, John Gruber and MG Siegler — to eschew comments on their platforms because they don’t “add to the conversation” or some such shit. And it’s true, they often attract trolls.

However, “one” suspects that the bloggerati also do not want reasonable people one-upping them on their own soapboxes with commentary that make their assertions look inane. 

Because, you know, awwwwwwkwaaaaaaard.

Whenever I read a thoughtless piece such as this, though, I dive into comments (assuming they’re available), because there are often gems to be mined from them.

And lo and behold, “Dave” comments:

“My TV being smart is only because I didn’t have a choice. The smartness came with the TV whether I wanted it to or not. I did make a conscious decision to buy an AppleTV. The Smart stuff in the TV is awkward and generally unpleasant. Not so with my AppleTV.

“Because there isn’t necessarily a choice here of (dumb TV+ smart device) vs SmartTV, the take-away and value of the article/report comes into question.”

When you’re in the market for a new top-end TV, you often end up with a smart TV — whether you want to deal with the unusable “smart” part of it or not.

Roettgers, not really processing what Dave is saying, replies:

“As the article says, 69 percent of Smart TVs are connected, which is a good indicator of consumers using them.”

Love how Roettgers refers to his own article to justify saying what a “good indicator” is. But the data point he points to doesn’t actually show that people use the smart parts of their TVs, as Dave points out:

“Again, I disagree with the interpretation of this data. My Smart TV has been connected since day one for purposes of software updates. I’ve used it’s smart features just enough to know I prefer other ways to do the same.”

Roettgers gets owned. Dave — and commenting — wins this round.

"Microsoft slams Google"

Jim Dalrymple quotes Microsoft’s “Scroogled” website:

When you buy an Android app from the Google app store, they give the app maker your full name, email address and the neighborhood where you live. This occurs without clear warning every single time you buy an app.

If you can’t trust Google’s app store, how can you trust them for anything?

My biggest problems with Google, a company I once admired as much as I did Apple, comes down to two things:

  1. Lack of innovation
  2. Lack of concern for users’ privacy

The first point is very well documented. Google used to create, now it rips-off everything that looks halfway successful with half-assed versions of crap: Google Play (iTunes), Google Drive (Dropbox), Google+ (Facebook)… the list goes on.

This is not hard to see — even the most knuckle-headed fandroid can’t deny timelines and quality.

What’s worse is the second point: Google continuously, methodically violates our privacy. 

No one cares because no one sees it. The prevailing attitude among the masses is “I get something for free, so they should get something in return.”

That’s all well and good. Perhaps Google should be able to track your activities online so they can serve up ads in search results. 

Should they distribute your contact information? Your full name? What other information is Google using and giving away? Do you know? Of course you don’t. I don’t.

People cry about Apple’s “walled garden” that closes off its operating systems in a manner that techie crybabies find offensive because they can’t easily do things that Apple hasn’t permitted.

It’s that walled garden that protects your privacy. Apple does not share your name and contact information with third-party app developers — which is why we’re so often prompted by those apps to provide information when we first launch them. 

Annoying? Sometimes. But you get to choose what you want to do with your information. I prefer that over having Google decide for me.

Coming clean, maybe: The Dan Lyons story

Dan Lyons reveals the dirty truth of today’s media and the people who work in the industry:

I’ve… spent the past few years writing “articles” that were less and less interesting — they were basically just SEO chum thrown out onto the internet in hopes of catching traffic.

“Articles” is another way of saying “Everything I ever wrote about Apple before being able to escape to a corporate gig.” Why? Because Lyons was only able to generate traffic to websites when he published weird, misleading columns about the company. 

Bashing Apple was the only way Lyons could make it in the publishing world. Can you recall anything he’s written that didn’t involved Apple? Me neither.

Now that he’s no longer in that industry, Lyons can tell us what he was actually doing — writing for traffic, not truth.

Bad on Lyons for pumping out not-sincere perspectives on Apple all those years. Good for Lyons, realizing that his previous career sucked, and that he’s in a position to do something else. And yet…

Well, here’s the next thing he’s pursuing:

But in the last year or so, many have started finding work as journalists inside companies. That new appetite for “corporate journalism” makes it easier than ever for journalists to leave their posts. Intel, IBM, GE, Oracle, and countless others have hired reporters. Some companies have a blogger or two; others are building full-fledged news organizations.

He goes on to write:

The result is that these days a lot of good journalism is being committed outside the walls of traditional media companies. As my friend Kevin Maney, a longtime tech columnist at USA Today who bailed out of mainstream media a few years ago, has written, “Traditional media is increasingly a bad place for a good journalist to work.”

Note that, unlike Lyons, Kevin Maney is not saying he’s a journalist. Which means Lyons is either confused as to what his job really is, or he is — once again — misleading readers.

“Corporate journalism” isn’t journalism: It’s public relations (telling the world what you’d like it to believe) or corporate communications (telling your workforce what’s what, rah rah). 

Corporations hire former journalists — and have for years, this isn’t a new phenomenon — because they know how to communicate: Planning, composing, propagating messages. It’s a skill that is under-appreciated by most, but necessary as it becomes clear that executives and their support staffs aren’t masters of written English.

And, of course, journalists take these jobs because they need real wages and benefits. Amen.

But do not believe someone who tells you that he or she is a “corporate journalist.” He or she will be implying that he or she is something he or she is not. He or she will always be a mouthpiece of a company which ultimately is trying to sell you something. 

They’re not evil. But they are marketers. Understand that, question it, and you’ll be fine… especially if you end up reading Lyon’s work in the future.

Moon Shots

image

This doesn’t start off as a rant but don’t worry, it is.

The words “moon shot” (or moonshot, whatever) first described shooting a spacecraft off Earth and on to the moon. Merriam-Webster says it was first used in 1957, when the idea of a moon landing was perhaps, just maybe, feasible if there were enough money thrown at the project.

After monkeys had already been there, done that, the question became, “If we can land a man on the moon, why can’t we solve such-and-such major issue?”

Good question: Why can’t we have more moon shots?

(Authors of a 1970 paper entitled “Escaping the Moon Shot Metaphor” describe approaching big problems — curing cancer, feeding the world, creating mass transit that works — with such a question as problematic. Downers.)

Moon shots are risky, expensive, insane stuff.

So it makes sense that  ”moon shot”  has taken on a secondary meaning: “Taking on a risky, expensive and probably insane proposition in pursuit of doing something utterly new; something previously only imagined but never really hoped for.”

Or something. We can polish that up later.

Steve Jobs bet the future of Apple — literally — on the iPhone, a dramatically different, potentially-ahead-of-it’s-time device that later defined the modern smartphone. The iPhone and its ilk has changed our first-world societies (for better or worse). Failure would have been a complete disaster to Apple. No other executive then — or today, really — would have taken a chance on the iPhone. Jobs did because he wanted the iPhone to exist. Because moon shots. 

We hear about Google taking moon shots: “Instead of a mere 10% gain, a moonshot aims for a 10x improvement over what currently exists.” And from that, we get Google X — their secret lab — working on nutty stuff no one else does: space elevators, self-driving cars or (sigh) Google Glass. 

Moon shots are risky, expensive and — in the eyes of most — likely to fail. They’re also inspiring, visions that excite entire populations and help focus contributors on the great goal at hand.

So of course HP wants to name something Moonshot. HP wants a slice of that perception pie. Unfortunately for HP, they’re slapping the name on a new line of servers.

Servers. 

The case for Project Moonshot, a multi-year effort, is that these systems will cut space and power in the data center. “It’s the foundation for the next 20 billion devices,” said [HP CEO Meg] Whitman.

What is awesome about Google’s self-driving car project? One day, we may say goodbye to drunk driving, collisions and assholes cutting off your mom on the freeway. Say goodbye to excessive pollution and fuel demand brought on by 99 percent of drivers who don’t know how to drive efficiently (yes, me too). Traffic will not be the headache and time suck it is today — and you’ll be able to do other things as you drive (sleep)! Governments will save money because they won’t need to invest in traffic cops or traffic lights. Et cetera, et cetera.

Hopefully, that is. Developing self-driving cars is a risk. It’s almost impossible to imagine them succeeding. They would also change the world.

That’s a moon shot. 

I’m sure HP servers are really, really, really, really, really nice. More power, take up less space, use less energy. Blah blah. I’m sure they’re very nice servers, perhaps game-changers… in server world. 

Are they a 10x improvement on something? Are they fundamentally world changing? Nope.

Moonshot servers are not moon shots. HP has cheapened the meaning. They won’t be the only ones, but they are the first that I know of. I bet Samsung has a Moonshot Note S phablet in the works even as I write this. 

Eff you, HP. You’re doing it wrong again.

I wonder what other words Google® objects to?

The Language Council of Sweden tried to include “ogooglebar“ — meaning “ungoogleable” — into its official list of words that aren’t in the Swedish dictionary but have entered common parlance. 

Their definition? “Something that cannot be found on the Web with a search engine.” 

“But Google® objected, asking for changes showing the expression specifically refers to Google® searches and a disclaimer saying Google® is a registered trademark, the council said Tuesday.”

The Language Council declined to change its definition, because the definition is actually what it is and not part of Google®’s awareness/marketing campaigns. But rather than stand its ground and include the word in its list, the council removed the offending term.

Pretty chickenshit stuff on the council’s part.  

Still, you know, it’s hard to ignore Google®, which can make your organization’s existence pretty miserable if you piss the company off. 

In case you are in a similar situation as the council, here are other words and phrases that Google® doesn’t want to exist:

  • monopoly
  • “search” (unless used in context of Google® Search)
  • “email,” due to its similarity to “Gmail®”
  • Orwell (noun), Orwellian (adj.)
  • meaningful competition
  • Apple, Microsoft, Amazon
  • Google® Reader
  • Reader
  • free expression
  • “government investigation into Google®’s monopolistic abuses”
  • privacy
  • “Don’t be evil”
  • “Google® is evil”

Google® is a registered trademark of Google® Inc., 2013.  

“Tips from Roku: Replacing batteries in your remote”

Oh good god.

In case you’ve never changed AA batteries before, Roku’s got your back.

Background: Some outside consultant or inside dumbass marketer has taught Roku that it must maintain constant and regular contact with its customers in order to, I dunno — develop a relationship with us? Be our bestest friend? Whatever line said consultants have sold to Roku, what you and I need to know is that it’s just bullshit markety-crap. 

Anyway, in response to the bullshit they’ve learned, the people of Roku are reaching out to me, apparently for the 877th time:

image

How to handle batteries.

Oh how to?

image

Who wouldn’t?

image

I have questions:

  1. Do you tear up your remotes and other electronics by pushing into the coil last?
  2. Or has a lifetime of broken, useless crap not taught you anything?
  3. Do you feel good about being told how to put batteries into your remote control? Do you feel cared for? 
  4. Do you look up to Roku now? Is Roku your big brother?
  5. Or are you, I dunno… insulted? Irritated? Bewildered that you’re reading this?

image

Why doesn’t the myth of replacing dead batteries with new ones from the same manufacturer just die? It’s bullshit. Roku is perpetuating bullshit.

Some friend.

Roku’s not just assuming I’m a dumbass who can’t change out double-As. Roku’s lying to me.

image

I have questions:

  1. “And while this one may surprise you”?
  2. Really?
  3. Why am I surprised by advice that I’ve been told my entire life?
  4. Why does Roku think no one knows this?
  5. Why does Roku think I’m retarded?

In sum: Fine, Roku — you and your ilk are going to waste my time, as well as yours, with “outreach” and “be a presence” throughout my life as as a consumer by sending me “helpful hints” and such.

Just do me a favor and don’t send me bullshit that assumes I’m not smarter than you. 

Because I am.

In which MG Siegler manipulates the trolls of TechCrunch to make himself look like a visionary

If you’re familiar with MG Siegler, you know he overwrites. So here’s a one-line TL:DR summary of the above link:

Apple is positioned to dominate gaming consoles.

Are you shocked? Do you find this unbelievable?

You shouldn’t: iOS as a gaming platform is understated but undeniable (though Apple is happy to point out that iOS has more games than any other platform). 

iOS constitutes the No. 1 mobile gaming platform today. And when Apple decides to make Apple TV part of that platform, Apple will eventually become the No. 1 gaming platform in the home as well. 

You don’t have to believe me. Just ask one of the original creators of Xbox. 

But in his verbose piece, MG has positioned himself to be seen as a visionary: 

“What I’m about to say is undoubtedly going to piss some of you off. And that’s fine. Because in a few years, I’ll be right and you’ll look silly.

“While everyone is focused on the next generation video game consoles from Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft — the latter two of which should be coming later this year — Apple is going to dominate them all. And it won’t even be that difficult.”

Sigh. Hey MG, will the sun also rise? 

The best part, though — the real reason MG has posted this piece — are the enraged geeks who are posting comments:

”’Hardcore’ game MW3 grossed one billion in 16 days. If your definition of winning is installs of angry birds, then maybe. The only way I see Apple taking over gaming is if whatever device is running the games has as much computing power as the consoles allowing the same games to be developed on the platform.”

and

Not going to happen.

1. Hardware simply isn’t there

2. Good luck creating infrastructure for 10gb+ games. 

3. Pricing and piracy

4. App store rules. Game developers will hate this.

5. Casual games aren’t going to be popular forever. Facebook gaming is dying already with Zynga.

Yet another shitty piece from MG.

and

Snore….This argument has been beaten like a dead horse. There is no comparison here. If I want real gaming I’m not going to choose a platform like iOS, Android, or even Windows Phone for that matter. They’re not real gaming devices. I repeat not real gaming devices. They are simple waste a few moments of my day entertainment devices. Remember all that talk about how the 3DS was dead? Now it’s a hit device, and guess what? It’s a pure gaming device. Yes it does a few extra things, but it’s dedicated gaming platform. I for one will never own anything Apple, because they are a horrible company for one. Secondly, their devices themselves are like working with an uncooperative child that doesn’t play nice with anyone but theirselves. I will continue using my Wii U and 360 for my gaming needs/entertainment needs. And if I want a small distraction I will hop on my Windows Phone or Surface for that.

That’s just a sample, and, of course, it’s all wrong: Gaming need not be as hardware intensive tomorrow as “hardcore” gamers expect today. And for every hardcore gamer out there, there’s probably 10 casual gamers who would dig a big-screen experience. Think Atari and Nintendo Entertainment System — if you played games on these systems, you probably played them for hours on end. 

But it’s not enough that MG positioned himself to be “right” when what he’s proclaiming is inevitable — he took to TechCrunch knowing full well it is an audience populated by dumbass trolls who can’t see what tomorrow brings. He not only expected these reactions like those above. MG wanted them.

“I’m right! You’ll see someday!”

“Noooo UR rong! SNURRRR!”

“See, I was right!”

“Apple dun create nothin’! GAAAAAAH!”

MG has gamed the fuck out of these tunnel-visioned dorks. By stoking their inept ire, he has set them up to make him look good later:

“Despite what a lot of naysayers out there were saying in 2013, I predicted that Apple would become the No. 1 gaming console in the living room and I was right.”

All in all, it’s a long, lame exercise in self-publicity. MG’s good at this sort of thing.

Top