Japanese "hate" for iPhone all a big mistake(appleinsider.com)
appleinsider.com
Japanese "hate" for iPhone all a big mistake
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/28/japanese_hate_for_iphone_all_a_big_mistake.html
17 comments
I get it now.. Techcrunch is trying to emulate the heavyweight in journalism right now: The Onion. :P
This is a pretty awful standard of journalism. I'd expect much better from Wired.
I hate to wish bad things onto people, but that's a basic ethical fault that should be punished, because it decreases the credibility of the whole paper (and a newspaper with no credibility is worthless). Not saying he should be fired, but harshly reprimanded, definitely. Twisting the facts to make a story more sensational is very improper.
I hate to wish bad things onto people, but that's a basic ethical fault that should be punished, because it decreases the credibility of the whole paper (and a newspaper with no credibility is worthless). Not saying he should be fired, but harshly reprimanded, definitely. Twisting the facts to make a story more sensational is very improper.
Wired has had embarrassingly low standards for a long time. They go for the "razor-cool, cutting-edge" appearance, which invariably fails because the cutting-edge people don't care about being supercool. That means that while Wired occasionally has a fascinating, relevant article, they more often have lame stories that try too hard.
I don't know if "razor-cool" is a description, since it makes no sense, but it sounds good to me.
I don't know if "razor-cool" is a description, since it makes no sense, but it sounds good to me.
Seems to be becoming a pattern for them:
http://norvig.com/fact-check.html
http://norvig.com/fact-check.html
Why would you expect better from Wired? Have you forgotten "Push" (what, was that 1994?)? "The Long Tail" (which turned out to be based on completely wrong estimates of Amazon's sales data)? MJD's qrpff sidebar (http://perl.plover.com/qrpff/)? The Cypherpunks cover with the guy with the big knife (was that 1992 or 1993)? The "End of Theory" lies about Norvig? Wired has always been about sensationalism, not meticulous accuracy, from the very beginning.
[deleted](1)
Oh come on, we all know it was pay-per-post and whether we accept it or not, it comes from redmond.
And TC is their propaganda lab.
No credibility at all.
And TC is their propaganda lab.
No credibility at all.
And can you back up that claim?
I know Australia is down under even if I've never been there.
"appleinsider.com"
Because they would be completely indifferent if someone said they didn't like an Apple product.
While I agree that it is reasonable to be skeptical of an article defending Apple from Apple Insider, a good comment would include criticism of the article itself rather than your strictly ad hom attack.
Well that's just it, I don't know anymore than that. I don't know who to believe on this story.
The japanese journalist misquoted in the wired article twitters quite a bit in both japanese and english, and even has an english blog.
He was pretty upset when the article hit, and posted an email to Chen on his blog: http://blog.nobi.cc/2009/02/my-view-of-how-iphone-is-doing-i...
He also twittered about the situation quite a bit, including some back and forth with Chen: http://twitter.com/nobi?page=5
He was pretty upset when the article hit, and posted an email to Chen on his blog: http://blog.nobi.cc/2009/02/my-view-of-how-iphone-is-doing-i...
He also twittered about the situation quite a bit, including some back and forth with Chen: http://twitter.com/nobi?page=5
Seems like you didn't read the article. It's full of very specific facts and quotations. Sure it could all be fabricated, but that seems very unlikely given the lengths it goes to pick apart the original article.
I can only quote from my own limited experience... But I was in Tokyo recently and I noticed the iPhone was quite popular. Anecdotal naturally. But I was surprised when I read the wired article.
First Last.fm; now this. That makes 2 TechCrunch articles in 2 weeks that make some kind of big, unsubstantiated claim. For hits, perhaps. Maybe fake journalism is their new weekly feature.