“I, Cringely” is a very popular technology blog/column on the PBS site. Here’s how it works. Mark Stevens, the author, writes a column about a hot technology topic every week. What makes it funny (and, I guess, popular) is that he almost never understands the topic or knows what he’s talking about.
For some reason, “I, Cringely,” has stayed in my NetNewsWire subscriptions for a few years now, and every year or so I seem to get irked enough to write an entry. Perhaps if Gruber took Cringely on a proper jackass-of-the-week ride, I could finally let go.
Anyway. Today’s 1500-word Cringely entry on the Apple TV, for example, is based on two things. First:
…if you are like me you are wondering what that 40-gig hard drive is doing inside. I’m guessing we won’t know for sure until later this year, though of course I also think I know the secret answer, too. … It will be interesting to hear Apple’s explanation for the hard drive.
Well, if you actually watched the keynote, or, say, visited the Apple TV web site, you’d already know: the hard drive is there for a simple reason. It makes it possible to sync an Apple TV with iTunes. Exactly like you sync an iPod with iTunes. In other words, it’s there to make the experience easy and familiar.
But wait, there’s more:
I’ll tell you my theory about the Apple TV in a moment, but first I want to riff a bit on the other components in the new ministack — the Mac Mini and the new AirPort Extreme Base Station. All three components have the same form factor, very similar cases, and they stack beautifully one atop the other. But why? Under what circumstance would you even want to stack all three together? It makes no sense to me.
Mark continues with this idea of stackability and the mysterious hard drive for the rest of the piece. And it would be interesting, if true. Alas, these devices do not form a “beatiful ministack” — the Apple TV is 1.2 inches wider and deeper than the Mac Mini.
Oops. It would’ve been a nice 1500-word analysis if the whole premise wasn’t wrong.
Of course, this week’s article is not an isolated incident. Let’s go back one week to DRM Catcher, which is another piece greatly enhanced by the author’s complete misunderstanding of his topic:
Dropping DRM would probably mean iPod users could subscribe to Real’s Rhapsody music rental service, for example. Real would make the technical effort for that to happen because reaching those 90 million iPods might (but probably wouldn’t) explode demand. Same goes for every other music service, including any directly sponsored by the major music labels. The lure of all those iPods is simply too strong.
Soo, let’s see… if the studios drop DRM, who benefits? Oh, of course, it’s the companies pushing music rental, the only digital music business model that actually requires DRM to work!
You just can’t make this stuff up. Perhaps Cringely has become a true Dvorak, sent to us to fill the void after Dvorak himself confessed to just baiting the Apple crowd for page views?
Oh well. I guess we all could just be reading Dilbert.
wikipedia says it is Mark Stephens. By either name, calling him John Dvorak insults both of them. Well stated.
only trouble is, if Gruber writes anything about anything and reader with any sense has rendered themselves unconscious half way toward the end!
Some of his theories are interesting from time to time. But maybe his column should be called "brain-storming" where it is perfectly acceptable to be off the wall.
Meanwhile, back to Dilbert.
r
yes, a ticket on the weekly jackass train for cringly would be appropriate.
It shouldn't take a Google search for readers of your blog to know that Robert X. Cringely is the pen name of Mark Stevens (or Stephens). Why not help us get over the "Huh?" reaction to your first sentence, by pointing that out so we can enjoy the rest of your blog? Or, just refer to him by the pen name.
Yep, spotted both of those articles the other day and had similar thought regarding the stacking as I'd noticed previously that the AppleTV was different dimensions (something that surprised me actually).
Regarding his point about the Real Rhapsody service in 'DRM Catcher', I don't think Real could get compatibility without their being a firmware update for the iPod, the technology doesn't exist within the Fairplay DRM to do rented music so Real couldn't make theirs work without Apple's help, which isn't going to happen.
Marko and Gruber both do something that Cringley doesn't. They both comment on what others have written. Cringley on the other hand picks up a wide variety of material and composes it into original thoughts.
You may want to quibble with some of the conclusions and as commentaries on others thoughts rather than thought creators that's your right, even the raison d'être for you sites.
And if occasionally what Cringley says gets the Apple fan boys panting a little hard well its you guys doing the panting.
Meanwhile I give much more credibility, and read with much more interest to those who think up new things to say, not ruminate on what others have said, with the sotto voce mumblings of don't attack my worship idol
> By either name, calling him John Dvorak insults both of them. Well stated.
There is a difference between being clueless or out of touch and being deliberately provocative towards a particular demographic to get traffic to your site.
Dvorak is just a cretin and has built a career writing material with the aim to push people's buttons because he isn't interesting or insightful on his own to garner any attention. The internet equivalent of the kid at the back of the Social Studies class who would shit his own pants so people would look at him to see what the smell was.
Cringley isn't in the same league. Missing the point is not the same as being deliberately obtuse to enrage people.
@ Mark: When you say
"Marko and Gruber both do something that Cringley doesn’t. They both comment on what others have written. Cringley on the other hand picks up a wide variety of material and composes it into original thoughts."
Are you implying that Marko and Gruber never compose original thoughts, but only respond to what others have said?
If so you would have been better served by making it clearer. The way that you've said it makes it sound like you are at first complimenting Marko and Gruber for doing something that Cringley doesn't, and then it sounds like you are criticizing them for it.
Of course if that is your claim, then you've done about as much research as Cringley.
You're also missing a fairly large part of what the web is about. The foundation of the WWW is the link. You write something, you link to someone else. That's kinda the whole point.
Fundamentally, my problem with Cringely is that he appears to write columns full of invention -- and when corrected, he defends inaccuracies by stating his readers don't care about details, only big picture stuff. I was in a round-robin (cc'd by participants) with him a couple of years ago in which it was staggering how little he knew about the topic and how vociferously he defended his lack of knowledge.
I think you're off-base here. You start with a great premise: Cringley is wrong about the stackability (though it does not violate the laws of physics to stack objects that don't have the same circumference) and he's somewhat glossed over the synching function of the hard disk (though in the second paragraph he mentioned "caching" if another machine in the house if off)
But comparing Dvorak to Cringely is just insulting to both Cringely and his readers.
I too have read RXC for years, and the reason he's one of only two tech pundits in my NNW subscriptions (Gruber being the other) is that he has original insights and ideas. Even if he's a mile off in his prognostications, he is in no way insulting, insular, or a troll.
Thus, even if he messes up a little once in a while, he's not getting removed from my list. BTW, RXC does have a blog format with comments... you could make your points there, and perhaps achieve something.
If you're going to criticize Cringley you better pick better examples:
The dimensions of Mac Mini and new AEBS match perfectly in width and depth while Apple TV is slightly larger (but still square); so Apple TV goes on the bottom, in a living room scenario that's probably the way you'd want it anyway. Step pyramids have been around for thousands of years...
Missing the publicized use of the ATV's HD is a valid point but does not rule out further uses for it which he is free to speculate about. Time will tell who's right about those speculations.
Your quote on music DRM from his previous column is rather misleading, the point is that all those iPods *are* a big attraction to the other music stores - though rental-only setups would not be among them (but Rhapsody isn't rental-only, it supports purchasing tracks too, and burning them to CDs also) - and removing DRM would enable that.
Comparing Cringley to Dvorak is just silly.
"Comparing Cringley to Dvorak is just silly."
I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion. For me, Cringley's articles became irrelevant by the mid 90's. I guess his articles are "original" because they're out in left field. But, come on, it's not like he's doing any kind of research. He's just talking about general industry topics. While not quoting or attacking someone else specifically, I don't see how that alone makes someone any "more" original.
As for Dvorak, I'm not so sure about him. He's had a strong anti-Apple bias for years. His wife was a Mac user and he was a PC user and I'm sure there was some friction along the way due to this. In essence, he had to buy Macs whether he wanted to or not. Likewise, I'm not so sure his Apple related posts were all about getting a big response. I'm sure he believes much of the nonsense he's printed over the years. What do you do when you're called out repeatedly for being incorrect? You say, I'm just "baiting the Mac users" as if it's something intentional. I don't think he's smart enough to be that deliberate from the get go. I think that's more like a convenient excuse you use after being proven wrong repeatedly. Maybe once or twice he did it in an obvious and intentional way as a means of covering for previous mistakes.