For all those who couldn't bare to read through the two previous posts soliciting feedback, here's another plea!
Actually I've had some feedback and from unexpected sources too, so thanks everyone! But I'd like more. If you are reading this blog, please just let me know in whatever way you can without embarassing yourselves!
Anyway, I haven't gone away (yet). I've just been remarkably busy and I'll be explaining a bit more about that in the weeks to come.
In the meantime, here's what to expect coming up:
1. Review of Linton 2006 Music and Ale Festival (wozzat?). You'll have to wait for that one (until I get the stereo mix of the videos I took in fact!). But if you're interested in the man who has more strings on his guitar than teeth (and his guitar is a 54 Stratocaster!), do come back. Hint: I'd accept the same number of teeth if I could play the guitar like him!
2. A brief mention of Zune, and what it may mean for the world of iPod.
3. Review of an interesting exhibition at the Barbican Gallery in London on futuristic architecture from the 50's through the present day.
4. Review of my new Nokia N80 phone - the first Nokia wi-fi phone (to my knowledge). How has 3G evolved in the last year, and in general the feature set of the higher end phone? All courtesy of a crazy business model for the mobile industry that makes keeping your 1 year old phone a daft proposition (well, the screen was almost unreadable due to scratching). I didn't really want to replace my old phone, as this would surely be increasing autism rates worldwide, but then I figured "better my 1 year old phone than the real villain - the iPod", remembering to thank the Express on Sunday for educating me about this truth :-)
Stay tuned! And, in the meantime, send me your comments on where you'd like the blog to go!
28 July 2006
21 July 2006
Hobsblog Anniversay - Where to now?
The previous post looked back at 1 year of Hobsblog - what I'd covered, and particularly what I'd learned from it. This post is about looking forward and really, really needs YOUR input.
Obviously, I could continue on doing the same sort of stuff - a good dose of Apple and other IT news focused around the personal computer and gadget world, biking, photos, media and DRM, and any other topics that catch my eye. I could also introduce a few new things. One idea I had evolved from when I considered setting up a website about Customer Service (with a GoodService site and a BadService site). People would be able to post their experiences in an effort to name/shame companies (and reward good ones). I shelved the idea after realising that some people have views of customer service that are actually quite irrational and that I would be constantly deleting or editing posts that did not really reflect what I was trying to achieve (eg. the unavailability of a particular strawberry at Waitrose is NOT cause for a complaint imho).
So, I am thinking instead about using Hobsblog for the odd posting of Good and Bad Customer experiences - particularly around topics whereby the internet has been used to communicate with a company via Contact Us or email. I have a number of villains lined up - Thames Water, Central Trains as examples already. I also have a couple of very good customer service examples too - particularly from a small company selling products called Good Oil, Good Dressing etc under the goodwebsite.co.uk brand. Even Cadbury's have positively surprised me. If this is a topic you'd be interested in on the blog, then I might give it a go. I would really like to have an effect on the dire levels of customer service being performed by some organisations.
But really, the rest is over to you the audience. In the end, this blog is only useful if there are readers of it. I don't even need you to comment (though it would be nice occasionally). But, I honestly don't know how many of you there are. So, I would ask as many of you who read this blog however often to let me know what you think or just let me know you are there. You can easily add an anonymous comment to this entry with just one word (!). But I'd welcome more feedback from you. Here's what I'd love to know (assuming you know by now the areas I have something useful to write about):
How could I make Hobsblog MORE valuable to you the readers?
This blog was initially for me to learn about blogging. Mission (partially) accomplished. For me to continue in any meaningful way is about it being valuable to others. Does it do that today or could it do that? Please use the most convenient way to communicate your support, your criticisms and/or your ideas as to where Hobsblog is to go for the next year and more.
Thanks for reading this over the last year, thanks for any comments you've made, and thanks especially for any comments you make in helping me take this forward into year 2.
Obviously, I could continue on doing the same sort of stuff - a good dose of Apple and other IT news focused around the personal computer and gadget world, biking, photos, media and DRM, and any other topics that catch my eye. I could also introduce a few new things. One idea I had evolved from when I considered setting up a website about Customer Service (with a GoodService site and a BadService site). People would be able to post their experiences in an effort to name/shame companies (and reward good ones). I shelved the idea after realising that some people have views of customer service that are actually quite irrational and that I would be constantly deleting or editing posts that did not really reflect what I was trying to achieve (eg. the unavailability of a particular strawberry at Waitrose is NOT cause for a complaint imho).
So, I am thinking instead about using Hobsblog for the odd posting of Good and Bad Customer experiences - particularly around topics whereby the internet has been used to communicate with a company via Contact Us or email. I have a number of villains lined up - Thames Water, Central Trains as examples already. I also have a couple of very good customer service examples too - particularly from a small company selling products called Good Oil, Good Dressing etc under the goodwebsite.co.uk brand. Even Cadbury's have positively surprised me. If this is a topic you'd be interested in on the blog, then I might give it a go. I would really like to have an effect on the dire levels of customer service being performed by some organisations.
But really, the rest is over to you the audience. In the end, this blog is only useful if there are readers of it. I don't even need you to comment (though it would be nice occasionally). But, I honestly don't know how many of you there are. So, I would ask as many of you who read this blog however often to let me know what you think or just let me know you are there. You can easily add an anonymous comment to this entry with just one word (!). But I'd welcome more feedback from you. Here's what I'd love to know (assuming you know by now the areas I have something useful to write about):
How could I make Hobsblog MORE valuable to you the readers?
• What subjects could I cover more of?
• What subjects should I cover less of?
• Is anyone interested in the Apple stuff (and Microsoft, Sony, Google, IT in general)?
• What style changes would you like to see (I'll assume that no one wants LONGER articles!)?
• Is frequency of posts too low or too high?
• Would you like me to just link to interesting things rather than write a long essay on it :)?
• What about the personal things - photos, travelling, etc? More or less?
Is it TOO opinionated (I know it's opinionated, but that's the way I am).
This blog was initially for me to learn about blogging. Mission (partially) accomplished. For me to continue in any meaningful way is about it being valuable to others. Does it do that today or could it do that? Please use the most convenient way to communicate your support, your criticisms and/or your ideas as to where Hobsblog is to go for the next year and more.
Thanks for reading this over the last year, thanks for any comments you've made, and thanks especially for any comments you make in helping me take this forward into year 2.
Hobsblog Anniversary - A Review
Today marks the 1 year anniversary of my entry into blogging, and I thought it worth stepping back a bit and reviewing what, if anything, has been achieved. In the next post, I will take a look forward.
My original idea was to see what blogging was all about. I was starting to see how it could be used as a tool for companies to reach out to their clients, partners, employees etc. in a much more interactive way than a corporate website ever could. I wanted to see how much was involved, what level of commitment is required, how hard it would be to continue to write material, and whether any interactions can be encouraged to create greater value to myself and/or to my readers. Let's come back to these points later.
I've gone back and done a little analysis (back of an envelope) to see how much I've posted and on what topics. Here are some results which may or may not surprise you:
Total number of posts: 227 - averaging around 4-5 entries per week.
The maximum posts in a month was 44 in January 2006, and the minimum was December 2005, with just 8. I think I'm managing to maintain a reasonable output - around 65 posts were made in Q2.
I haven't done any in-depth looking at the number of words, but I long-ago abandoned any pretence at keeping articles compact. I would suspect that if anything, the articles have on average increased in size over the year. I know many of the articles are long - and indeed overly so. Such articles often get several iterations of editing, and they ALWAYS grow in size as I write it - providing more links and bringing in more background, points etc. This is just my style and I don't seem to be able to change this!
What I did want to take a look at was the topics that I have covered.
I came up with a list of subject areas that I have written about. These subject areas are not particularly well-defined, but I think would equate well to keywords or tags for the articles. I quickly and unscientifically went back through the postings to see what "tags" I would put on the articles. Most articles would have just one tag, but a few might have more than one (the odd article escaped this treatment altogether). I would only apply a tag if the article was PRIMARILY about that subject. An article on Apple's iPod and DRM for instance might have both Apple and DRM/Media as tags. Here are the results:
So, it isn't ALL Apple here you know! There was a particular surge in January with a number of articles around MacWorld 2006 considering how the Intel transition might pan out. But a big question for all of you is whether you'd like to see more or less of this topic? Having worked with Macs since 1984, bought probably in excess of 500 machines in my career, and having met Steve Jobs personally on a couple of occasions (including being interviewed personally by him), I do feel it's a subject I know well and can provide a reasoned commentary on things, even if from the enthusiast/supporter point of view. But of course, there are better commentators (and writers) out there doing similar things (Jon Gruber's Daring Fireball springs to mind). I would like to think some of the postings have been reasonable and insightful. The post "7 reasons Apple went with Intel not AMD" back in September has proven pretty reasonable for instance way before most people knew what a Core Duo chip was. I also think I provided a reasonable commentary on the introduction of the iPod video - predicting it as a music player that COULD do video, and also correctly forecasting that iPod nano sales had surpassed a million within the first month.
On other subjects, I have nothing but my career and personal experience, passion and/or a modicum of common sense (!) to add. I have tried to bring attention - but in a reasoned way - to issues I feel passionate about - DRM and the music/media business; journalism; political issues such as personal privacy. I've also tried to inject a bit of humour or link to others far more humorous than myself. But writing is not an easy medium for this. People who know me may detect the tongue in cheek more easily than others who don't. The article I wrote on "Nazis and the iPod" which was really about my disdain for the Daily Hate (sorry, Mail) did not really hit the button. And, I think in honesty the weakness of my writing style is that I try to take aim at too many things in one article instead of focusing down on a point and making it more incontrovertibly! But I have a disdain for over-simplifying a complex world. I believe that each subject needs a holistic treatment. That's why I had 7 reasons Apple went Intel - all valid in my view and influencing to the decision to some degree. Others would have said simply Apple went Intel for X reason.
I am personally pleased with some of the other posts I have made - some of which have a more lasting element - such as the Hoar Frost photos, whale watching, travelling, travelling, more travelling and my folding bike and bike riding experiences. And, strangely it is some of these that get commented on the most - sometimes from people I know but more often not. It is this that makes blogging fun, interesting and valuable. I pass on a bit of knowledge/observation/photo, but I get so much back from it.
So what has not worked so well? I think the low number of comments has been a disappointment. I tried to make comments easier to make - comments can be made anonymously, and I don't think I've ever rejected a comment. But, they do require some effort (but conversely, I've never had comment spam!). I think there are a lot of subjects here that I'd like some more debate on, and that debate is not being had here! I think the bigger problem of course, is that the blog is not widely read. It has been picked up sometimes without any effort, but very rarely. There are no usage statistics on places like Technorati for it, (yet I know it is read by a few people!) I've recently been adding tags and experimenting with other things (eg Feedburner RSS). It is now easier to find posts (eg via a Technorati search), but the wider web does not pick up on this blog very often. Of course, I didn't set out to get a wider interest. But I have to say that to continue the investment in some topics is crazy without a wider audience and the debate that comes from that.
A word on the hosting is in order too. I've found Blogger.com to be pretty reasonable as a place to host the site. It's had some major technical problems at times, and it's own search does not appear to work most of the time (but not all!). It lacks categorisation (at least as far as I can tell), and it lacks a separate comments feed which would be nice. Posting is easy usually via browser (though Safari is more limited than Firefox), but I can also (and have) use e-mail, a dashboard widget, and send a post from my phone. Including photos is also easy - including again from my phone directly, though resolution is an issue. I'd like to find a tool which allows me to do a bit more - tie into my website for instance, and I'd like that to be on the Mac. However, iWeb is not that tool (at least in version 1.1). Rapidweaver - an application I covered here a few months ago, may be a suitable next step (especially with some new themes released for blogging), but I am wary of the effort it will take to switch (and it still lacks mobile blogging features). Moving the blog is not exactly likely to increase readership - quite the contrary. So, if I move it, it has to be as part of a greater plan. More on that in the next post.
What have I learned?
I've learned quite a lot - primarily about the effort to produce content. I've learned some of the basic technical aspects, but there is more here I could know with better use of features like trackback. But, content is King! It takes a lot of work to get a better quality article, and it's all too easy to put out garbage. For the organisations and people I work with, a business blog would be advisable in only a couple of cases. And, even then, it would take a commitment to generate content, and also some work to get the blog noticed. While I have got a couple of these people interested and STARTING to look at things like RSS, most of the potential readers of their blogs are still a long way from that.
In fact, I still find myself preaching even just basic RSS use to many people even though I know it would change their internet use more than any other single thing they've done since getting broadband (only my beloved other half has jumped into it, and she does use it consistently for tracking general news and science stories). So, while these potential-bloggers could be early movers in their field, it's a chicken and egg approach that means effort is spent cajoling potential readers to sign up in any way - email subscription, web page visit, etc. You can't just blog and people will come, especially in a field outside where the geeks congregate. It IS changing, but slower than it should.
Having said that, for the people I've identified, I am absolutely convinced they could improve their business by blogging and working on creating a community of interested people with their blog at the centre of that. I will continue to encourage them to venture out into the world of blogging.
So, that's the review of the last year. Feedback on what's been here would be very useful to me. But, I'd most like you to head over to the next section which looks forward. It's been fun, interesting and instructive. But it also needs to evolve. Pop to the next post, have a quick read, and then leave me a comment and help make Hobsblog better (or put it out of its misery)!
My original idea was to see what blogging was all about. I was starting to see how it could be used as a tool for companies to reach out to their clients, partners, employees etc. in a much more interactive way than a corporate website ever could. I wanted to see how much was involved, what level of commitment is required, how hard it would be to continue to write material, and whether any interactions can be encouraged to create greater value to myself and/or to my readers. Let's come back to these points later.
I've gone back and done a little analysis (back of an envelope) to see how much I've posted and on what topics. Here are some results which may or may not surprise you:
Total number of posts: 227 - averaging around 4-5 entries per week.
The maximum posts in a month was 44 in January 2006, and the minimum was December 2005, with just 8. I think I'm managing to maintain a reasonable output - around 65 posts were made in Q2.
I haven't done any in-depth looking at the number of words, but I long-ago abandoned any pretence at keeping articles compact. I would suspect that if anything, the articles have on average increased in size over the year. I know many of the articles are long - and indeed overly so. Such articles often get several iterations of editing, and they ALWAYS grow in size as I write it - providing more links and bringing in more background, points etc. This is just my style and I don't seem to be able to change this!
What I did want to take a look at was the topics that I have covered.
I came up with a list of subject areas that I have written about. These subject areas are not particularly well-defined, but I think would equate well to keywords or tags for the articles. I quickly and unscientifically went back through the postings to see what "tags" I would put on the articles. Most articles would have just one tag, but a few might have more than one (the odd article escaped this treatment altogether). I would only apply a tag if the article was PRIMARILY about that subject. An article on Apple's iPod and DRM for instance might have both Apple and DRM/Media as tags. Here are the results:
apple..........64 (28%)
apple related*...20 (9%)
cycling.........8 (3.5%)
journalism.....8 (3.5%)
other IT.......26 (12%)
gadgets/software....15 (6.5%)
humour...........11 (5%)
people I know.....9 (4%)
travelling......8 (3.5%)
microsoft......23 (10%)
sony............13 (5.5%)
politics/issues....14 (6%)
sports.........5 (2%)
science/nature....10 (4.5%)
drm/music/media....19 (8.5%)
* related to Apple (eg Mac software but not primarily about Apple)
So, it isn't ALL Apple here you know! There was a particular surge in January with a number of articles around MacWorld 2006 considering how the Intel transition might pan out. But a big question for all of you is whether you'd like to see more or less of this topic? Having worked with Macs since 1984, bought probably in excess of 500 machines in my career, and having met Steve Jobs personally on a couple of occasions (including being interviewed personally by him), I do feel it's a subject I know well and can provide a reasoned commentary on things, even if from the enthusiast/supporter point of view. But of course, there are better commentators (and writers) out there doing similar things (Jon Gruber's Daring Fireball springs to mind). I would like to think some of the postings have been reasonable and insightful. The post "7 reasons Apple went with Intel not AMD" back in September has proven pretty reasonable for instance way before most people knew what a Core Duo chip was. I also think I provided a reasonable commentary on the introduction of the iPod video - predicting it as a music player that COULD do video, and also correctly forecasting that iPod nano sales had surpassed a million within the first month.
On other subjects, I have nothing but my career and personal experience, passion and/or a modicum of common sense (!) to add. I have tried to bring attention - but in a reasoned way - to issues I feel passionate about - DRM and the music/media business; journalism; political issues such as personal privacy. I've also tried to inject a bit of humour or link to others far more humorous than myself. But writing is not an easy medium for this. People who know me may detect the tongue in cheek more easily than others who don't. The article I wrote on "Nazis and the iPod" which was really about my disdain for the Daily Hate (sorry, Mail) did not really hit the button. And, I think in honesty the weakness of my writing style is that I try to take aim at too many things in one article instead of focusing down on a point and making it more incontrovertibly! But I have a disdain for over-simplifying a complex world. I believe that each subject needs a holistic treatment. That's why I had 7 reasons Apple went Intel - all valid in my view and influencing to the decision to some degree. Others would have said simply Apple went Intel for X reason.
I am personally pleased with some of the other posts I have made - some of which have a more lasting element - such as the Hoar Frost photos, whale watching, travelling, travelling, more travelling and my folding bike and bike riding experiences. And, strangely it is some of these that get commented on the most - sometimes from people I know but more often not. It is this that makes blogging fun, interesting and valuable. I pass on a bit of knowledge/observation/photo, but I get so much back from it.
So what has not worked so well? I think the low number of comments has been a disappointment. I tried to make comments easier to make - comments can be made anonymously, and I don't think I've ever rejected a comment. But, they do require some effort (but conversely, I've never had comment spam!). I think there are a lot of subjects here that I'd like some more debate on, and that debate is not being had here! I think the bigger problem of course, is that the blog is not widely read. It has been picked up sometimes without any effort, but very rarely. There are no usage statistics on places like Technorati for it, (yet I know it is read by a few people!) I've recently been adding tags and experimenting with other things (eg Feedburner RSS). It is now easier to find posts (eg via a Technorati search), but the wider web does not pick up on this blog very often. Of course, I didn't set out to get a wider interest. But I have to say that to continue the investment in some topics is crazy without a wider audience and the debate that comes from that.
A word on the hosting is in order too. I've found Blogger.com to be pretty reasonable as a place to host the site. It's had some major technical problems at times, and it's own search does not appear to work most of the time (but not all!). It lacks categorisation (at least as far as I can tell), and it lacks a separate comments feed which would be nice. Posting is easy usually via browser (though Safari is more limited than Firefox), but I can also (and have) use e-mail, a dashboard widget, and send a post from my phone. Including photos is also easy - including again from my phone directly, though resolution is an issue. I'd like to find a tool which allows me to do a bit more - tie into my website for instance, and I'd like that to be on the Mac. However, iWeb is not that tool (at least in version 1.1). Rapidweaver - an application I covered here a few months ago, may be a suitable next step (especially with some new themes released for blogging), but I am wary of the effort it will take to switch (and it still lacks mobile blogging features). Moving the blog is not exactly likely to increase readership - quite the contrary. So, if I move it, it has to be as part of a greater plan. More on that in the next post.
What have I learned?
I've learned quite a lot - primarily about the effort to produce content. I've learned some of the basic technical aspects, but there is more here I could know with better use of features like trackback. But, content is King! It takes a lot of work to get a better quality article, and it's all too easy to put out garbage. For the organisations and people I work with, a business blog would be advisable in only a couple of cases. And, even then, it would take a commitment to generate content, and also some work to get the blog noticed. While I have got a couple of these people interested and STARTING to look at things like RSS, most of the potential readers of their blogs are still a long way from that.
In fact, I still find myself preaching even just basic RSS use to many people even though I know it would change their internet use more than any other single thing they've done since getting broadband (only my beloved other half has jumped into it, and she does use it consistently for tracking general news and science stories). So, while these potential-bloggers could be early movers in their field, it's a chicken and egg approach that means effort is spent cajoling potential readers to sign up in any way - email subscription, web page visit, etc. You can't just blog and people will come, especially in a field outside where the geeks congregate. It IS changing, but slower than it should.
Having said that, for the people I've identified, I am absolutely convinced they could improve their business by blogging and working on creating a community of interested people with their blog at the centre of that. I will continue to encourage them to venture out into the world of blogging.
So, that's the review of the last year. Feedback on what's been here would be very useful to me. But, I'd most like you to head over to the next section which looks forward. It's been fun, interesting and instructive. But it also needs to evolve. Pop to the next post, have a quick read, and then leave me a comment and help make Hobsblog better (or put it out of its misery)!
18 July 2006
iPods, autism and journalism
I can't even believe I'm writing this, but I am and I will.
In my recent post on journalism, I suggested that I would steer clear of stories on Apple to avoid clouding a post with any bias I may have. After all, my issues with the press transcend anything that Apple may produce.
But this article I came across today really takes the biscuit, and I am forced (temporarily I promise to suspend my use of Apple-related stories in my onslaught against the stupid (British) press.
Here's the headline:
(yes, really, honestly)
It comes from the Express on Sunday (another British rag of course, though a tabloid one), via Thomson. I can't exactly vouch for the Express headline - typically for such a newspaper you can neither find the article nor search the newspaper on the web, but I will assume it was the same. Here we go with the first paragraph:
Let me preface this by saying that I am very worried about autism. I support the Cure Autism Now foundation in the US (though I should do more), and I have some wonderful friends who have been affected by this to a great extent. I could link you to a website that would bring tears to your eyes (as well as laughter and joy). I take research into autism very seriously. For a while I was even taken in by the MMR scam which I think has proven a complete red herring and demonstrated a fundamental failing in the way scientific research and the media interact (primarily because of greed and ego of course). But that's for another day.
For all I know, the scientist mentioned here may be doing great work and maybe on to something (toxic heavy metals for instance), but the reporting of it is truly disgusting. How much is the scientist himself to blame? I have in fact checked out his publication record, and it is quite distinguished, though he is relatively new to the field of autism. At first, I thought it might be a coincidence he has a book to promote (I'm not going to publish the link as that would be aiding, but you can find it at Amazon)? But, I've thought more about this, and don't think that's likely. Looking again at the statements attributed to him, I think he mentioned the word iPod almost in passing among a number of themes. I think he's made a mistake by picking a brand (if he did). The blame lies fairly and squarely on the reporting. The reporters obviously do not consider it their mission to do something positive. Or if they do, they have a very, very poor understanding of cause and effect or the ability to understand the magnitude of the issues being reported. They should certainly give up writing about health and science if after hearing Dr Lathe, their interpretation is that toxic iPods are primarily or even slightly to blame.
Where do we begin with this? Let's look at just a few of the things that are so fundamentally wrong with this article:
1. iPods have been around since November 2001. The number disposed in landfill would be quite tiny in any country. The amount of "bad stuff" leaked out (if any) would be minute even now.
2. The number of iPods ever produced is dwarfed by the number of mobile phones by a factor of at least 150:1. Mobile phones however have been popular since the early 90's and we are encouraged to trade in our phones on an annual basis for the latest model of course. I would imagine that the number of iPods built is about 1/250th the number of mobile phones the world has ever produced. Why on earth would you not use the mobile phone as the prime culprit in reporting this story? If you wish to change behaviour that would have a greater effect. (Personally, I also doubt the mobile phone is to blame either).
3. I would imagine that the iPod represents at most around 0.2% of all electronic goods ever produced that use rechargeable batteries in some degree, and mp3 players collectively would not exceed even 0.4%. That's probably a high estimate. What about batteries from disposed laptops which are far larger for instance? Yet, iPod batteries are not amongst the list, they are first in the list.
4. Are Li-ion/polymer batteries better for the environment than using multiple disposable AA batteries or rechargeable NiCd/NiMh batteries? I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if the answer is no. I can count on my hands and feet the number of such (Li-ion) batteries I've ever used (and I still have most of them). But I imagine the number of disposable batteries is in the high hundreds.
5. What device are people most likely to dump in landfill? Is it the expensive 3 year old mp3 player or the walkman they've had for 10 years gathering dust or the first generation digital camera? If you want to change behaviour focus on what is going to make a difference.
6. The original author points out that Mercury seems to be the prime heavy metal implicated in this. I can pretty much guarantee that no Apple product or battery in an Apple product has any mercury whatsoever in the last 10 years if ever. Mercury is not permitted in electronic goods to my knowledge. However, it did appear in things like flourescent lights as mercury vapour for many years. If mercury is in landfill it didn't come from iPods. Mercury was also used in tiny amounts in some versions of the MMR vaccine.
7. I should also point out that recent research on mercury and autism revealed that removing mercury from the MMR vaccination had NO effect (zero) on autism rates. So, in fact Mercury may have nothing to do with autism (Google it yourself, folks).
8. The author mentions "every ship that sinks, every rusting car..." contributes to toxic metals. So, in fact the problem is far, far wider than just consumer eletronic goods again. By my calculations all the iPods ever shipped weigh just 6,500 tonnes - so about 1/2000th of the weight of cars scrapped just in the UK each year (approx 2m). Indeed, approximately 80,000 tonnes of tyres were disposed in UK landfill sites last year. Do you think 80,000 tonnes of tyres each year is perhaps slightly worse than immediately disposing of all the iPods ever made in a landfill in Berkshire? Why, why, why "toxic iPods"?
9. What about other causes of mercury and toxic metals in the environment such as dentistry, and crop spraying/agriculture. Again, these are surely bigger causes. In the latter case, that's a more obvious way in which such things can get indirectly into our bodies.
10. Apple (and other quality electronic consumer goods manufacturers) offer a recycling policy which could have been pointed out in the article and again, publicity of this could actually make a difference to people's behaviour.
I would be happy to eat an iPod of anyone's choosing (1st generation through to 5th, via mini, nano and shuffle) if anyone can produce even the slightest real evidence that a particular person is autistic because of an iPod battery (higher incidence near a Cupertino landfill anyone?). Heh, I'd even eat one of my own iPods. It might take me a few weeks to do it crushed and sprinkled in my breakfast cereal, but I would.
Of course, many of you reading this will say that I'm over-reacting, the story is not about iPods and that "iPod" is used generically for MP3 players (which is a GOOD thing for Apple). People understand enough that they would not think Apple was the prime culprit but that all electronic devices are equally at fault (not true of course). But, I'm afraid I take a dimmer view of society's comprehension skills (especially of people who read the Express on Sunday). Such reporting does nothing to alter the fundamental behaviours that may (or may not) contribute to this problem (and irrespective of autism, battery disposal/electronics goods disposal, and indeed ANY disposal IS a severe environmental problem). It uses one brand to draw attention to the article (succeeded in that one!) but it puts the blame on that brand for a problem that is about our own selfish behaviour and laziness and in which that brand is far less culpable than many other brands and companies (even household names). Apple should sue for libel/slander/defamation (you can tell I'm not a lawyer) and put the Express group out of existence. That would be a public service to us all indeed.
Tags: iPod, Apple, Autism, Daily Express
In my recent post on journalism, I suggested that I would steer clear of stories on Apple to avoid clouding a post with any bias I may have. After all, my issues with the press transcend anything that Apple may produce.
But this article I came across today really takes the biscuit, and I am forced (temporarily I promise to suspend my use of Apple-related stories in my onslaught against the stupid (British) press.
Here's the headline:
Toxic iPod link to shock rise in autistic children
(yes, really, honestly)
It comes from the Express on Sunday (another British rag of course, though a tabloid one), via Thomson. I can't exactly vouch for the Express headline - typically for such a newspaper you can neither find the article nor search the newspaper on the web, but I will assume it was the same. Here we go with the first paragraph:
THE huge rise of autism in Britain is linked to old iPod batteries, mobile phones and other products of the electronic age, a leading scientist claimed this weekend.
Let me preface this by saying that I am very worried about autism. I support the Cure Autism Now foundation in the US (though I should do more), and I have some wonderful friends who have been affected by this to a great extent. I could link you to a website that would bring tears to your eyes (as well as laughter and joy). I take research into autism very seriously. For a while I was even taken in by the MMR scam which I think has proven a complete red herring and demonstrated a fundamental failing in the way scientific research and the media interact (primarily because of greed and ego of course). But that's for another day.
For all I know, the scientist mentioned here may be doing great work and maybe on to something (toxic heavy metals for instance), but the reporting of it is truly disgusting. How much is the scientist himself to blame? I have in fact checked out his publication record, and it is quite distinguished, though he is relatively new to the field of autism. At first, I thought it might be a coincidence he has a book to promote (I'm not going to publish the link as that would be aiding, but you can find it at Amazon)? But, I've thought more about this, and don't think that's likely. Looking again at the statements attributed to him, I think he mentioned the word iPod almost in passing among a number of themes. I think he's made a mistake by picking a brand (if he did). The blame lies fairly and squarely on the reporting. The reporters obviously do not consider it their mission to do something positive. Or if they do, they have a very, very poor understanding of cause and effect or the ability to understand the magnitude of the issues being reported. They should certainly give up writing about health and science if after hearing Dr Lathe, their interpretation is that toxic iPods are primarily or even slightly to blame.
Where do we begin with this? Let's look at just a few of the things that are so fundamentally wrong with this article:
1. iPods have been around since November 2001. The number disposed in landfill would be quite tiny in any country. The amount of "bad stuff" leaked out (if any) would be minute even now.
2. The number of iPods ever produced is dwarfed by the number of mobile phones by a factor of at least 150:1. Mobile phones however have been popular since the early 90's and we are encouraged to trade in our phones on an annual basis for the latest model of course. I would imagine that the number of iPods built is about 1/250th the number of mobile phones the world has ever produced. Why on earth would you not use the mobile phone as the prime culprit in reporting this story? If you wish to change behaviour that would have a greater effect. (Personally, I also doubt the mobile phone is to blame either).
3. I would imagine that the iPod represents at most around 0.2% of all electronic goods ever produced that use rechargeable batteries in some degree, and mp3 players collectively would not exceed even 0.4%. That's probably a high estimate. What about batteries from disposed laptops which are far larger for instance? Yet, iPod batteries are not amongst the list, they are first in the list.
4. Are Li-ion/polymer batteries better for the environment than using multiple disposable AA batteries or rechargeable NiCd/NiMh batteries? I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if the answer is no. I can count on my hands and feet the number of such (Li-ion) batteries I've ever used (and I still have most of them). But I imagine the number of disposable batteries is in the high hundreds.
5. What device are people most likely to dump in landfill? Is it the expensive 3 year old mp3 player or the walkman they've had for 10 years gathering dust or the first generation digital camera? If you want to change behaviour focus on what is going to make a difference.
6. The original author points out that Mercury seems to be the prime heavy metal implicated in this. I can pretty much guarantee that no Apple product or battery in an Apple product has any mercury whatsoever in the last 10 years if ever. Mercury is not permitted in electronic goods to my knowledge. However, it did appear in things like flourescent lights as mercury vapour for many years. If mercury is in landfill it didn't come from iPods. Mercury was also used in tiny amounts in some versions of the MMR vaccine.
7. I should also point out that recent research on mercury and autism revealed that removing mercury from the MMR vaccination had NO effect (zero) on autism rates. So, in fact Mercury may have nothing to do with autism (Google it yourself, folks).
8. The author mentions "every ship that sinks, every rusting car..." contributes to toxic metals. So, in fact the problem is far, far wider than just consumer eletronic goods again. By my calculations all the iPods ever shipped weigh just 6,500 tonnes - so about 1/2000th of the weight of cars scrapped just in the UK each year (approx 2m). Indeed, approximately 80,000 tonnes of tyres were disposed in UK landfill sites last year. Do you think 80,000 tonnes of tyres each year is perhaps slightly worse than immediately disposing of all the iPods ever made in a landfill in Berkshire? Why, why, why "toxic iPods"?
9. What about other causes of mercury and toxic metals in the environment such as dentistry, and crop spraying/agriculture. Again, these are surely bigger causes. In the latter case, that's a more obvious way in which such things can get indirectly into our bodies.
10. Apple (and other quality electronic consumer goods manufacturers) offer a recycling policy which could have been pointed out in the article and again, publicity of this could actually make a difference to people's behaviour.
I would be happy to eat an iPod of anyone's choosing (1st generation through to 5th, via mini, nano and shuffle) if anyone can produce even the slightest real evidence that a particular person is autistic because of an iPod battery (higher incidence near a Cupertino landfill anyone?). Heh, I'd even eat one of my own iPods. It might take me a few weeks to do it crushed and sprinkled in my breakfast cereal, but I would.
Of course, many of you reading this will say that I'm over-reacting, the story is not about iPods and that "iPod" is used generically for MP3 players (which is a GOOD thing for Apple). People understand enough that they would not think Apple was the prime culprit but that all electronic devices are equally at fault (not true of course). But, I'm afraid I take a dimmer view of society's comprehension skills (especially of people who read the Express on Sunday). Such reporting does nothing to alter the fundamental behaviours that may (or may not) contribute to this problem (and irrespective of autism, battery disposal/electronics goods disposal, and indeed ANY disposal IS a severe environmental problem). It uses one brand to draw attention to the article (succeeded in that one!) but it puts the blame on that brand for a problem that is about our own selfish behaviour and laziness and in which that brand is far less culpable than many other brands and companies (even household names). Apple should sue for libel/slander/defamation (you can tell I'm not a lawyer) and put the Express group out of existence. That would be a public service to us all indeed.
Tags: iPod, Apple, Autism, Daily Express
17 July 2006
Good news from the EU!
Better late than never (though in the case of Microsoft's fines, I'm not so sure), the EU Court of First Instance has thrown out the merger of Sony's record label with BMG which reduced the number of major record labels down to 4 (and with Warner and EMI expected to tie the knot, that number would have gone to 3).
I never understood how this could have been allowed in the first place - this is an industry that needs LESS concentration not more as it has been shown to act as a cartel and oligopoly (and through it's various trade bodies around the world such as the RIAA and BPI) taking an anti-consumer stance and holding back rightful enjoyment of legally-owned copyright.
Well done EU!
Note: Thanks to Ars Technica for the link - it was something I meant to post on last week!
Tags: Sony, BMG, DRM, BPI, EU Competition
I never understood how this could have been allowed in the first place - this is an industry that needs LESS concentration not more as it has been shown to act as a cartel and oligopoly (and through it's various trade bodies around the world such as the RIAA and BPI) taking an anti-consumer stance and holding back rightful enjoyment of legally-owned copyright.
Well done EU!
Note: Thanks to Ars Technica for the link - it was something I meant to post on last week!
Tags: Sony, BMG, DRM, BPI, EU Competition
More on British Journalism
Last week I noted that much bad publicity for Apple seemed to be originating in the UK press, and questioned some of their journalism standards. While mentioning a few other issues where I believe journalism has a lot to answer for (eg MMR), I focused on Apple, not just because I am clearly a fan, but feel that my knowledge should allow me to be a better judge of the accuracy of such reporting.
Nevertheless, Charles in his comment to the post defended the quality of journalism in this country. Rather than being cheap, simplistic, or opportunistic, it was just "journalism".
Now, in my ongoing (one-man, and no doubt futile) quest to raise standards of journalism in this country, I'm going to try taking this whole issue further. And to do that, I'm going to remove any tainting of the argument by eliminating any issue to do with Apple Computer from the discussion. After all, Apple is capable of looking after itself, and the issues I'm trying to raise are far more important to the public of this country than any company or business - unfairly maligned or not.
My premise is this:
Journalism in this country has dumbed down; it writes articles that do not do justice to the complexity and full issues of a topic; it often single-issues the whole thing into some sort of X is Good, Y is Bad argument; it is led by fashion with little or no vision; there is also a concentration of ownership of the press at work that also leads to questions of impartiality both in political and business reporting. Basically, it has, I belive, lost its way. It no longer informs or educates, it merely tries to shock or create emotion. It is the ultimate spin machine in relation to politics, celebrity, business, etc. and in so doing invites the worst behaviour from all those whose professional or personal lives touch it. I'm not just talking about the Big Brother, Hello magazine, tabloid world of journalism. I'm talking about the broadsheet market. I think it's also had a degrading effect on some of our broadcast media reporting as well. I (in another case of cutting off my nose, Charles) long ago gave up listening to the Today programme which used to be so brilliant. But, I'm not alone. I have come across many people who have given up listening to this programme, and more knowledgeable commentators than me have questioned some of the reporting there.
To get the ball rolling on this and see if there is any common ground, let's start by taking something I think is a comparatively straightforward example of what I'm suggesting.
Last week, the (British) Times reported on the government's Energy Review publication with the following headline:
The first paragraph of the article went like this:
The article did not link to the Energy Review document itself (c'mon Times, you can do better), which (for your benefit) is here.
I'm not going to dwell on the rest of the article nor on the 218 page government report (which looks to cover a wide range of interesting topics). I'm going to focus on that headline (which I thank Ars Technica for bringing to my attention). It's quite a claim that stand-by buttons will be outlawed after all. Of course, at a simplistic level, it's not a bad idea, but in reality what is bad about stand-by is that it was implemented very poorly in older devices (and some new ones), so doesn't save a lot of power. But if implemented correctly (e.g. in computers that have sleep functionality) it can actually be very good indeed for the environment. I was somewhat amazed that our government had decided that ALL stand-by functionality was bad and would be outlawed. So I downloaded the report. I searched for standby - no hits; I searched for stand-by - 3 hits. The most notable entry was this (which contained 2 of the search hits):
This is quite a clear statement and in no way can be misinterpreted that stand-by features are to be "outlawed".
Now, granted, the article was in the technology section of the Times, and their remit might be somewhat limited, but this simple example neatly sums up my disillusionment with journalism. I cannot understand:
1. Why in a review of a major policy document of 218 pages with important implications to everyone, does the article headline and lead with an issue that is addressed primarily in just one sentence and one paragraph of the document?
AND
2. Having chosen its lead issue, why does the newspaper then clearly use a headline which is just flat-out wrong, and cannot be in any way justified from reading the report? A reader (especially one who glances at the article as most will) is left misinformed in both fact and overall in relation to the topic itself.
It would be particularly useful if either of the authors Lewis Smith or Mark Henderson could explain to me the answers to the above. Assuming we won't be so lucky to have them grace the comment pages here, perhaps I can beg Charles to defend his fellow technology journalists on this one? (Or, preferably, agree with me that, at least in this case, I have a point!)
Tags: The Times, Stand-by, EnergyReview, UK, Bad Journalism
Nevertheless, Charles in his comment to the post defended the quality of journalism in this country. Rather than being cheap, simplistic, or opportunistic, it was just "journalism".
Now, in my ongoing (one-man, and no doubt futile) quest to raise standards of journalism in this country, I'm going to try taking this whole issue further. And to do that, I'm going to remove any tainting of the argument by eliminating any issue to do with Apple Computer from the discussion. After all, Apple is capable of looking after itself, and the issues I'm trying to raise are far more important to the public of this country than any company or business - unfairly maligned or not.
My premise is this:
Journalism in this country has dumbed down; it writes articles that do not do justice to the complexity and full issues of a topic; it often single-issues the whole thing into some sort of X is Good, Y is Bad argument; it is led by fashion with little or no vision; there is also a concentration of ownership of the press at work that also leads to questions of impartiality both in political and business reporting. Basically, it has, I belive, lost its way. It no longer informs or educates, it merely tries to shock or create emotion. It is the ultimate spin machine in relation to politics, celebrity, business, etc. and in so doing invites the worst behaviour from all those whose professional or personal lives touch it. I'm not just talking about the Big Brother, Hello magazine, tabloid world of journalism. I'm talking about the broadsheet market. I think it's also had a degrading effect on some of our broadcast media reporting as well. I (in another case of cutting off my nose, Charles) long ago gave up listening to the Today programme which used to be so brilliant. But, I'm not alone. I have come across many people who have given up listening to this programme, and more knowledgeable commentators than me have questioned some of the reporting there.
To get the ball rolling on this and see if there is any common ground, let's start by taking something I think is a comparatively straightforward example of what I'm suggesting.
Last week, the (British) Times reported on the government's Energy Review publication with the following headline:
TV standby buttons will be outlawed
The first paragraph of the article went like this:
"The Government is to outlaw standby switches on televisions and video and DVD players to cut the amount of electricity wasted in the home."
The article did not link to the Energy Review document itself (c'mon Times, you can do better), which (for your benefit) is here.
I'm not going to dwell on the rest of the article nor on the 218 page government report (which looks to cover a wide range of interesting topics). I'm going to focus on that headline (which I thank Ars Technica for bringing to my attention). It's quite a claim that stand-by buttons will be outlawed after all. Of course, at a simplistic level, it's not a bad idea, but in reality what is bad about stand-by is that it was implemented very poorly in older devices (and some new ones), so doesn't save a lot of power. But if implemented correctly (e.g. in computers that have sleep functionality) it can actually be very good indeed for the environment. I was somewhat amazed that our government had decided that ALL stand-by functionality was bad and would be outlawed. So I downloaded the report. I searched for standby - no hits; I searched for stand-by - 3 hits. The most notable entry was this (which contained 2 of the search hits):
2.23 Aiming to limit stand-by power consumption, which in 2004 used 8% of all residential electricity and is a rising trend, is also a priority for the Market Transformation Programme. We will continue to press at international level for full implementation of the International Energy Agency’s 1 Watt initiative to reduce stand-by power consumption.
This is quite a clear statement and in no way can be misinterpreted that stand-by features are to be "outlawed".
Now, granted, the article was in the technology section of the Times, and their remit might be somewhat limited, but this simple example neatly sums up my disillusionment with journalism. I cannot understand:
1. Why in a review of a major policy document of 218 pages with important implications to everyone, does the article headline and lead with an issue that is addressed primarily in just one sentence and one paragraph of the document?
AND
2. Having chosen its lead issue, why does the newspaper then clearly use a headline which is just flat-out wrong, and cannot be in any way justified from reading the report? A reader (especially one who glances at the article as most will) is left misinformed in both fact and overall in relation to the topic itself.
It would be particularly useful if either of the authors Lewis Smith or Mark Henderson could explain to me the answers to the above. Assuming we won't be so lucky to have them grace the comment pages here, perhaps I can beg Charles to defend his fellow technology journalists on this one? (Or, preferably, agree with me that, at least in this case, I have a point!)
Tags: The Times, Stand-by, EnergyReview, UK, Bad Journalism
14 July 2006
Stunning new Intel Conroe Chips
I've mentioned in several posts over the last year about Intel's re-emergence as a leader after AMD's performance domination in recent years.
Last month Intel introduced the Woodcrest (new Xeon) chips to great acclaim for the server market, and now is the turn for "Conroe" - the desktop variation of the Core 2 platform.
This in-depth review from Anandtech is excellent reading in understanding how far this chip is ahead of Intel's previous Pentium D offerings, and shows how it beats every AMD desktop chip today in every benchmark.
Expect a Conroe to find its way into an Apple computer coming your way very soon. And chalk another one up to Apple's widely-derided decision to choose Intel (rather than AMD) a year ago.
Personally, I'm waiting for the mobile version - Merom - to be released and even then may wait until early next year for the arrival of the next generation mobile platform codenamed Santa Rosa which will support flash memory and next generation wireless. Of course, if I hadn't been a fool and bought the last generation Powerbook G4 thinking it'd be a while before professional Intel Powerbook's, I'd be writing this on a MacBook Pro today!
Tags: Apple, Intel, Conroe, Anandtech, Core2
Last month Intel introduced the Woodcrest (new Xeon) chips to great acclaim for the server market, and now is the turn for "Conroe" - the desktop variation of the Core 2 platform.
This in-depth review from Anandtech is excellent reading in understanding how far this chip is ahead of Intel's previous Pentium D offerings, and shows how it beats every AMD desktop chip today in every benchmark.
Expect a Conroe to find its way into an Apple computer coming your way very soon. And chalk another one up to Apple's widely-derided decision to choose Intel (rather than AMD) a year ago.
Personally, I'm waiting for the mobile version - Merom - to be released and even then may wait until early next year for the arrival of the next generation mobile platform codenamed Santa Rosa which will support flash memory and next generation wireless. Of course, if I hadn't been a fool and bought the last generation Powerbook G4 thinking it'd be a while before professional Intel Powerbook's, I'd be writing this on a MacBook Pro today!
Tags: Apple, Intel, Conroe, Anandtech, Core2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
