Count me in as someone who wants to know what a Frobenioid is. Haha, love it.
I’m a little perplexed how John Gruber doesn’t seem to really grok the Square Stand. I don’t claim to know whether it’ll be successful or not, but its appeal seems obvious to me. I agree that $299 seems high, but if Square can sell them at that price, then why not?
Why does it work with the 30-pin connector and not Lightning? Because the stand is designed for point of sale. Why would anyone buy the newest iPad if it’s only going to be used for credit card purchases? The less-expensive iPad 2 seems perfectly suited for this function. Sure, they’ll need to update the functionality at some point, but it seems like a low priority to me.
Regarding his last point — if someone is already hooked into the Square system, this seems like a big upgrade from the ultra-janky connector that people get for free, even if the price is a bit elevated. Shit, isn’t that partly what makes Apple so successful?
From the probably-should-have-put-this-in-the-lead department,
The Spamhaus blacklist is widely used, and it’s widely used for one reason: contrary to STOPhaus’s claims, it does, in fact, successfully block a lot of unwanted e-mail. There might be occasional collateral damage, but Spamhaus’ users are clear: they’re willing to take that risk if the alternative is more spam.
My summary of the article: spammers are jerks. The end.
I’m of the opinion that Gruber’s example of Coke’s “The Real Thing” campaign is the most spot-on part of his post discussing marketing tactics in the battle with Samsung. Let’s forget what might be “beneath” Apple (whatever that means), and instead think about the (lack of) merits of pursuing an aggressive position against Samsung.
I’m going to channel a bit of Sun Tzu and mention that since Apple is the dominant player in the smartphone market, their best strategy is a defensive one. Samsung is second place, therefore their best strategy is an offensive one (as best exemplified by their cheesy anti-Apple ads). Being mentioned by Apple is exactly what Samsung would want; and it would only give them more credibility, not less. Hell, “The Real Thing” slogan would work just as well for Apple as it did for Coke, as would “There’s a Reason We’re Number 1,” etc etc.
As a freelancer myself, I was thrilled when I first heard about the Freelancers’ Union several years ago. I enjoyed reading this feature on its founder, Sara Horowitz, who has a pragmatic and strategic attitude that I really admire:
Freelance contractors made up 31 percent of the American workforce in 2005, according to a GAO report, and that ratio is almost surely even higher today. As the freelance trend began to accelerate, in Horowitz’s recounting, labor activists at first tried to cajole corporations into hiring all those independent contractorsas full-time staff with benefits. But to Horowitz, it was clear this was a losing battle. “It would never make sense from the company’s perspective,” she says, “and we’d never have enough leverage.” Instead, she envisioned a new strategy: She’d find ways to organize and protect freelance workers—in all sorts of fields—in the same way that classic trade unions provide safety nets for corporate employees.
Living in California, I can’t take advantage of the health insurance offered, but I like where this idea is headed.
Additionally, it frequently frustrates me to see the complete lack of discussion of entrepreneurship in the conversation of getting jobless Americans back to work. The rhetoric generally involves how one politician or another is going to help “create jobs” (whatever that means).
Here’s an idea: how about people try working for themselves, so that they’re not constantly at the mercy of large corporations who don’t care about them?
Just a thought.
The industry of writing inflammatory bullshit about Apple is booming.
It’s booming partially because writing inflammatory Apple headlines gets a lot of clicks. Apple is popular and the dominant player in many industries, so anything that attacks it will attract attention.
That said, Gruber has a good point:
My rule of thumb is to ignore anything that is stupid and languishing in obscurity. But if it’s stupid and published on a high-traffic site, or it’s an expression of a widely-held misconception, it’s often worth addressing, bullshit or not.
I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. On the one hand, I don’t like giving more attention to idiots, but my natural instinct is to attempt in some small way to publicly shame these people for polluting the internet with their stupidity. That said, trying to do so is basically boiling the ocean.
Kottke’s mention (scroll down a bit) of an excellent New Yorker piece about the Citicorp Center’s close shave with a disaster of epic proportions reminded me of a documentary I saw some years ago, “How Manhattan Escaped Tragedy” (part 1, part 2, part 3).
“In the worst case scenario, this was not a building that was going to just simply crumble and fall down. This was a building that was going to tip over in the wind; and it would cause [a] domino [effect]. It would cause the next high-rise and the next high-rise to fail.
And how far that would go? Probably the most extreme that I heard was that it could go as far as central park.”
Domino! If you don’t have the 30 mins to spare, the Science Channel has its own take on the same topic.