Does a magazine like New Yorker need smarter tech coverage?

Two of the dumbest memes in recent history are "Apple is closed. Google is open. Apple deserves to lose." and "Steve Jobs is gone. Apple will finally start loosing." Sadly, the New Yorker of all places chose to merge-for-the-kill, Transformers-like, and feature these particular brands of dumb in astonishingly disappointing form. John Gruber of Daring Fireball has gone through the entire fit-the-facts-to-the-thesis argument presented in the piece, and finds, not surprisingly, it's fallacious and flawed to an embarrassing degree.

I'm deeply conflicted about linking to people who say dumb things about Apple. I dislike rewarding negative attention seeking, and hate validating their click-bait business models. Yet every once and a while, when something is so dumb, and is published in so mainstream a venue, that I'll get a call from my mom about it, exceptions need to be made.

Most for-profit companies guard and keep closed what makes them money, and open and try to fragment what makes their competition money. That's how for-profit companies work. Like the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker is held in high regard. Their technology coverage, just as much as their news and politics coverage, should live up to that trust.

I'm not linking to the New Yorker, not rewarding their link-bait. Just read Gruber's piece.

Via: Daring Fireball

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheIphoneBlog/~3/Ea_JrqRNpPE/story01.htm

click here for more info another great resource about making money online make money online affiliate marketing