Over at BGR, Tero Kuittinen writes: “Apple suddenly looks a lot like Nokia“. There’s no looks like at all. As I explain in my book, The Principles of Disruptive Design, Apple, like Nokia in 2007, is unable to transcend design concepts that lock it into an older UX paradigm; from top of the mountain can’t see the crumbling below; and is unwilling to jeopardize the success it has to risk something new.
I had forgotten how long this Net neutrality debate has been going on. While looking for something else, I stumbled onto my post from April 2006, when I lived on the East Coast and had FiOS.
[vimeo https://vimeo.com/93048304]
I can’t seem to escape Apple’s “Powerful” commercial, which during some primetime programs airs two, or even three, times. The TV spot is aspirational marketing done right, with booming tagline: “You’re more powerful than you think”.
If there is a villain in my book Responsible Reporting: Field Guide for Bloggers, Journalists, and Other Online News Gatherers, Google is it. I fiercely criticize bad reporting practices perpetrated on behalf of the Google free economy, where a mighty monopoly extends incredible influence over advertising dollars and content distribution. Flip around to one of my other tomes, The Principles of Disruptive Design, and the search and information giant is praised for innovation that promises to usher in the “Star Trek”-era of touchless computing. So what? Is Google devil or savior?
As a content creator my feelings about Google are mixed. Philosophically, I believe in the openness of information and non-restrictive copyrights that let the producer profit from his or her good work in the present but benefit everyone later on. Last-Century revisions ruin the latter ethic. Life plus 70 years is a ridiculously long copyright that rapes the very concept of public domain.
Google’s business model enables free spread of information, which supports my other ethic. But there’s rot at the core—the free-content economy that search demands. As I explain in my new ebook Responsible Reporting: Field Guide for Bloggers, Journalists, and Other Online News Gatherers, “the search giant profits from your good work, reducing its value in the process”. Google produces no content, while its whole business model is about profiting from others’ content.
Ah, shucks, I missed Yahoo’s 19th birthday yesterday. That’s okay, because 20 will matter more. Yahoo is cloud computing’s elder statesmen, long before anyone used the term. Just a handful of first-wave dotcoms—Amazon is another—are public companies today, making the transition from venture-backed startup with a dream and no viable revenue source ahead.
Yahoo is a warrior. A survivor. A transformer. I use the latter term not to describe a company that transforms industries but one that transforms itself. Yahoo is many things over 19 years—search engine, web portal, and media mogul to name a few. Under CEO Marissa Mayer, the company changes again, but still seeks new identity. Good luck with that.
AppleInsider story “Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn’t bested Tim Cook’s Apple” is superb example of advocacy journalism. Writer Daniel Eran Dilger is an unabashed Apple apologist, one who has skewered me more than once at his site Roughly Drafted, and AI. As I expressed last week, using Apple as example, there absolutely is a place for this kind of journalism.
Because bias is inevitable. Objectivity is a myth. Point of view limits everyone. Your vantage point, whether visual, cultural, biological, logistical, or whatever other “ical” applied, shapes how and what you write about.
In June I opened a Kickstarter account intending to crowdfund a book. I chose Indiegogo instead, and now regret considering the other. As you can see from the screen capture of the email I received […]
I called GoDaddy today and got a welcome surprise. There’s a new policy for phone requests. If 2-factor security is enabled, the caller must give the six-digit code sent by text message to access the […]
Dropbox, like Twitter, demands more freedom to disclose government national security requests. The cloud companies share something vitally important. Their businesses are built on trust. You won’t store your stuff or tweet from an oppressive regime if someone can access your content or identify you. Twitter’s position, as I explained last week, also supports free speech and benefits news gatherers across the globe.
“Whom do you trust?” is a vitally important question, with so many devices connected to the Internet and accessing cloud services. Dropbox learned lessons—okay, presumably—three years ago when changing its Terms of Service agreement to allow government access. Suddenly all those encrypted files weren’t as permanently secure as customers expected. They responded unkindly.
There is no denying that the home of the summer of love is now experiencing a winter of fear and loathing. Rory Carroll Superbly-written take on the revolt around San Francisco against tech giants like […]
My personal site is in state of revival, as I follow through on a long-contemplated change to my blogging style. I let inertia hold me back. No longer.
Since July 2011, I reserved most of my personal writing for Google+ and built there a fairly robust following (more than 16,000 Circles at present). The social network makes easy posting and connecting to others. Elsewhere, I write for BetaNews (e.g., for work).