I'm really quite diplomatic here. Really. I am.
But this latest drivel from The Guardian's Online editor, Jack Schofield, is just too much. I've been reading The Guardian's coverage of this stuff since it was a weekly half-page feature called 'Computer Guardian' in the mid-1980s (of course, I don't read any actual newspapers anymore (except at the weekend), but still vaguely follow that one online, specially when that nice Mr. Hammersley's writing, or The Fiver). But throughout all that time - almost 20 years - Jack Schofield's 'take' on the various Mac platforms - and anything approaching the Apple ethos - has been unfailingly, consistently, unwaveringly negative. To say the least. Actually, one could go beyond that to further mark it up as asinine. (Diplomatic, see?). Here's the latest, discussing a psychologist's assessment of the design of the latest iMac in a Wired article:
"Clearly there's now a major industry devoted to explaining why 2.5% of the computer-buying population is still willing to pay well over the odds for very slow computers that severly limit your range of choices and lock you in to a single dictatorial supplier. Maybe Miller should have looked at infantilism instead..."
Not surprisingly, that garnered a few comments on The Guardian's Onlineblog. Matt Frownland has a good overview.
