Week 27: F.U.D. of the Week
Theoretically, pundits and full time analysts are paid to be correct. And to fix mistakes. But they usually don’t. So, we of the AFB among others call them out.
The AFB members are volunteers. We fix mistakes because we want to be better. Sometimes we do this silently, sometimes not.
Your assumption on what pundits and full time analysts are paid to do is somewhere between naive and ignorant (in the sense that you appear to not actually know better). They are not paid to be correct, they are paid for a load of other tasks. It does not matter if they are correct, it matters if what they say “adds value” or has a positive cost benefit for whoever pays them. Costs and benefits may be other than cash, could be reputation, corporate identity, etc.
Being wrong but getting a lot of publicity is one well known version. There are plenty of others, including taking the pressure off a CEO who has made a bad decision - blame a pundit who has the same error, or face the company value going down because shareholders who do not understand technology start to think that the company is headed by someone who has made a bad decision all on their own.
The idea that pundits are paid to be correct is as absurd as the idea that pundits are actually correct.
And, at the last minute, Jesus Diaz piles the shit on Lion with an unofficial review of the GM.
Good job he hates it - perhaps Gawker Media want to repeat the success of the pre-release iPhone shit from last year.
Mac OS X Lion: This Is Not the Future We Were Hoping For
Jesus Diaz ? It breaks my heart to say this, but Mac OSX Lion’s interface feels like a failure. Its stated mission was to simplify the operating system, to unify it with the clean experience of iOS. That didn’t happen.
If it weren’t for the fast, rock-solid Unix, graphics and networking cores, Lion would be Apple’s very own Vista.
The path to a simpler future
When Steve Jobs first introduced Lion, he set a bold goal: to take what has made the iPad and the iPhone so successful and bring it to the desktop. There’s nothing wrong with that. The simplification of the computer experience?which actually gives more power to the users by allowing them to focus on their work instead of screwing around with their machine to make it do what they want?has been the Holy Grail of computers since the 80s.
It happened then, when we switched from the command line to the graphical desktop. (For the complete history of this evolution, read this). But in the last three decades computers have again become too complicated for a lot of people. The rest of us put up with it because we’ve gone through years of conditioning, but most people don’t know any conventions and shortcuts accumulated over two decades?the layers upon layers of user interface, patched one on top of another.
That’s why the iPad and the iPhone have been so amazing. They were clean slates that kicked all those conventions to the curb. The result is a simple, powerful environment. It’s awesome. It is the future.
Lion is the wrong step into that future. By trying to please everyone, the OS X team has produced an incongruent user interface pastiche that won’t satisfy the consumers seeking simplicity nor the professional users in search of OCD control. Apple hasn’t really targeted a specific population. Or provided varying levels of user control?a super-simple modal interface for normal people and pro-level classic window interface for nerds. That’s what Microsoft is trying to do with Windows 8. Ironically, if Apple had taken a page out of Microsoft’s book in this case, it would have been a step in the right direction.
Article here Discretion advised.
Is It Time for Apple to Shut Safari Down?
By Daniel Bailey, Conceivably Tech
July 9, 2011
When you’re caught in a 5% market share trap, what are your options? Keep surviving or abandon the business?
I have to admit that we have largely stopped paying attention to Apple’s (Nasdaq: AAPL ) Safari browser here, largely because it is not a moving target anymore. There is little to no innovation coming from Apple for Safari, there is no market interest beyond the Apple user base, and Apple appears to have lost interest in pitching Safari as the best browser in the universe.
When I updated our weekly market-share watch this morning and noted that Firefox has been stable for about two weeks now (thanks to Firefox 5, apparently) and that Chrome was slightly up and IE was slightly down, there was Safari and Opera at the very bottom of the chart, ailing somewhere around or below the 5% mark. In the big picture, Safari and Opera are irrelevant in the browser market today.
It is somewhat obvious that Safari is an increasingly painful problem for Apple and its users in a time when all rival browsers advance at a breathtaking pace and have turned Safari into the IE of the past. Even if Safari can enjoy the benefits of the Apple brand, it is a stale browser that lacks the innovative spirit of Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and the modern IE. Apple may have to make a choice soon: Either accelerate the development of its browser to bring it up to par with the feature set of its other platform products, or turn it into an app and open the App Store to other browsers—or simply shut down Safari, as Chrome is based on the same core engine and is the far better browser today.
Doing nothing may be the worst choice.
NOMINATIONS are now open for F.U.D. (Fouled Up Dope) of week #28.