Wow. Josh Topolsky is mad. And that by itself is fine — he’s clearly passionate about technology, which is great. What’s not fine is the fact that he’s way off-base in his rant. So far off-base that I need to respond.
First and foremost, Topolsky has decided to turn my thoughts on the Galaxy Nexus into full on class warfare between Android and iOS. That is, he twists my comparison of attention to detail into an argument about rich vs. poor people.
I mean, he actually tries to do this.
One little problem.
Congratulations to CNET’s Brooke Crothers for writing one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read in a while — and successfully getting myself (and undoubtedly many others) to link. Even more impressive: he didn’t have to break 400 words to do it. My guess is that he wrote this in 10 minutes. If not, that’s just sad.
You used to see a lot more of these types of posts a few years ago. But once those writing them started getting exposed as fools, they slowed down. You see, the argument used to be that those constantly writing positively about Apple were both morons and brainwashed — Apple was insignificant in the all-important PC market at the time, so those who liked the products were obviously whack jobs on the fringe of humanity.
Then a funny thing happened.
Apple became one of the most successful companies and the most valuable company in the world. They transformed the entertainment landscape, the retail landscape, the mobile landscape, and did something all the naysayers said was impossible: created an actual market for tablets. Now most companies around the world are trying to copy at least part of Apple’s business.
Matt Rosoff’s thoughts on Google becoming more like Microsoft should have been a provocative and effective article. Instead it’s a slideshow. Why? I have no clue.
Well okay, pageviews, clearly. But it’s still weird to see this type of story formatted this way.
Business Insider has taken a lot of shit over the past year or so for pageview pumping by way of slideshows (AND CAPS-LOCK HEADLINES). Whatever, that’s their decision and it seems to be working out for them. All I know is that as an author, I would hate this.
Rosoff’s name is on the landing page and nowhere else. As a result, it doesn’t feel like an article he crafted. At best, it feels like a collage he made. I can’t believe any writer would appreciate this.
3 slides (of 12) in, I have no clue who wrote this. And the whole thing lacks the flow of great writing. It’s a bunch of mini-blurbs instead of one cohesive article making a strong case.
Both the reader and the writer lose as a result of this nonsense. But Business Insider wins, I suppose.
Like everyone else, I used to be a big fan of Fake Steve Jobs. Then he was revealed to be Dan Lyons. The magic was over. The 15 minutes was over. He had to go back to doing his actual job — though not before he got a book out of it. But it can be hard to go back.
Today, Lyons writes a post disguised as a takedown of my Kindle tablet scoop from a few weeks back. But if you go one layer deeper, it’s clear what he’s actually writing about. In the words of Roger Murtaugh, “I’m getting too old for this shit.”
Sometimes you want so badly to say “I told you so!” after months of getting kicked in the ass, that you do so without really looking into what you’re writing about. Or even thinking, really.
Such is the predicament Dan Lyons finds himself in today.
The artist formerly known as Fake Steve Jobs wrote the following this morning immediately after hearing about Google buying Motorola: