Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddman
None of those are negative about the iPad when you actually read the copy (in fact, the third link isn't even primarily about the iPad).
|
1st points out how the "iPad" name reminds lots of people of feminine hygiene products; not exactly a glowing review. 2nd expresses an overt opinion that the iPad will be a "poorer choice" for reading than eInk. 3rd points out the possible outrage due to impending higher prices, thanks Apple.
And are other media outlets overflowing with hit pieces on the iPad? Chicago Tribune, perhaps? WaPo? USA Today? CNN? Or is every news outlet in thrall to Apple?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Teddman
The bottom line is that it's worth keeping in mind the New York Times' relationship with Apple and the Ipad when reading an article like this.
|
There is no relationship; Jobs is hardly a member of the Sulzberger family. NYT also has a subscription agreement with Amazon; does that taint their coverage of Amazon as well? Amazon and Apple often compete, so which one of these two behemoths is pulling the NYT's strings?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Teddman
For instance:Gee, where do you think they found the "three anonymous sources" with inside info about Apple's prices on NY Times own best-seller's list books? I don't think the writer had to walk too far from his desk.
|
Err... The NY Times bestseller list has been a benchmark for booksales for
decades. It's not like some sort of top secret list that only publishing insiders have access to. E.g.:
http://www.amazon.com/Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=549028
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/u/fict...oks/379001064/
http://www.borders.com/online/store/ListView_nytfiction
More likely is that someone -- perhaps Apple, perhaps a publisher, possibly both -- is hoping to defuse the outrage over the higher pricing by leaking info. It's a common tactic in business and other fields.