Posted by jc | Posted in Inglorious Rants , iPad articles require waders | Posted on 11:43 AM
This says it all. Ok, not quite all.
Apparently some tech writers think that I have no family or friends - or that maybe I do, but we don't have any interest in sharing viewing experiences together. Sporting events? Blah. A movie? Better watched alone. And of course, none of your companions are interested in widescreen or HD, either.
Not only that, but to tell me that it's my 'next tv' implies that my social viewing habits are disintegrating immediately.
But wait - I'm just getting started!
Holy fuck. These people are in a different world. One where people who say negative things about the iPad a relegated to "nitpicker" status. Says Blam:
"I mean, the article about the nitpicks, a counterbalance to all the posts we have that expressed love, surprisingly resonated to the tune of 1.2m clicks to you all. They aimed for more people who wouldn't nitpick over details and would get the general magic."This in itself is telling - persons who wish to use their influence in the tech community will do so by minimizing flaws and maximizing perceived benefits, to the point where they risk appearing to discerning persons as 'being on the payroll', 'sellouts', 'biased', 'fanboys', 'advertorialists', 'jobbers', 'Jobbers', etc.
And believe me, they are aware of the effect of influence. In the same article:
"They should have gone for straight up influence, and tuned the device for each celebrity reviewer by using apps."Bllyyeaaach. Forget the abilities (or lack thereof) of the product. Don't nitpick. Make it fashionable. Yuck. This is not gadget reporting, this is whoring.
I have to wonder what the purpose if a gadget blog should really be, if it cannot provide objective reporting. If it leans on influence, it becomes subjective by definition.
As it stands, Gizmodo has completely lost its gag reflex. Steve has never been happier.