Amazing how WSJ overhyped Google-Safari story to degree that Google’s getting bigger pass than otherwise would have bit.ly/xG2nl0
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan)
I think Danny Sullivan has this right. Because WSJ went so over-the-top in making the story about Google being evil and trying to “track” iPhone users, they’re actually getting somewhat of a pass (even by me!) for the nonsense they’re actually pulling.
This is a very real story, but — no surprise — WSJ is reporting it the wrong way. The real story is that it sure looks like Google is being dishonest — a nice word for “lying” — about their privacy practices and what exactly they were doing here. And they possibly violated their FTC agreement about “privacy misrepresentations”.
Correct. OS X 10.1 was codenamed “Puma” (the cat names were just codenames at that point still). And yes, a Puma is just another name for a Mountain Lion. And both are just different names for — wait for it — Cougars.
I just don’t think Apple is taking the naming all that seriously. OS X 10.8 is called “Mountain Lion” because it’s like OS X Lion but slightly different.
Yesterday, Christopher Mims of MIT’s Technology Review took on the challenge of taking a step back from the screaming to look into what’s really going on behind the latest Bitchmeme. Reading his take, it occurs to me that Mims, and probably many others, are completely missing something very fundamental going on here.
Mims argues that investments make us unreasonably biased and conflicted, yadda yadda. Same argument, different day. He even cites this tweet:
Reporters in Silicon Valley get scoops on the startups THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MONEY IN.It’s hilarious, like if ESPN also owned the Lakers
— Downtown Josh Brown (@ReformedBroker)
…which is funny because from 1997 until 2005, Disney owned a Major League Baseball team, the Anaheim Angels. Guess who else Disney owned during that time? Yep. ESPN.
From 1993 until 2005, Disney also owned the National Hockey League team, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. Again, they owned ESPN at the time as well.
If you want one other example (there are many), how about the fact that The New York Times owns a stake in the Boston Red Sox.
Weird, huh? This all must be very hilarious to Downtown Josh Brown.
Anyway. The very obvious point that Mims and others fail to mention is that no one is forcing anyone to do anything. If you don’t want to read what Michael and I write, don’t.
If you think we’re unreasonably biased and conflicted, do not visit our sites, cite our work, etc. Why would you?
The real problem our critics have is that an ever-increasing number of people do read what we write. The old guard doesn’t like that one bit because we’re not doing it their way. But they can’t do a damn thing about it besides bitch and moan. Too bad. The readers ultimately decide, not you.
Meanwhile, our conflicted coverage of the Path situation this week included information such as the fact that while there was no question that Path needed to (and did) fix the issue, many others were guilty as well. As was Apple. And we noted that Apple was on the verge of fixing this whole situation.
You could have gotten early insight into all of today’s news by reading our posts over the past week. Instead, the cycle turned into a shitstorm of nonsense that ultimately doesn’t matter in the slightest.
The fact remains: if you want to read, great! If you don’t, great! It’s completely up to you.
Looks like someone woke up from his nap of the last three years and is hungry. Sadly, I don’t have much food for him. I’ll keep this as brief as possible — and I promise this will be the last thing I ever say about Dan Lyons, as he’s clearly done.
The truth is that I pre-responded to Lyons earlier today before he even wrote his post. You could see it coming. What I wrote yesterday directly attacks the way he makes a living. When you do that, people get irrationally upset and write posts like the one Lyons just wrote. Just to reiterate, the line that applies here from the film Moneyball: