Letters to the Editor
Thomas 2.0
Published Letters: 9 Editor's Choice: 2
-
wePhone
[Read the article: Meet the iPhone hackers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This story shows how Apple--which almost always does almost everything right--misunderstands the nature of its success (unless you buy the very interesting "Very Revealing" comment). The iPod didn't acheive and maintain market domination just because it was pretty and functional tech. . . that would have been enough to acheive domination, perhaps, but not to maintain. No, it's because it cemented Apple's rep as a technological and design innovator. Delighted consumers quickly became brand advocates.
The iPhone doesn't seem likely to generate nearly as much "delight."
These iPhone hackers are the best thing that could've happened to Apple. Beyond expanding the iPhone market to the AT&T averse, they're forcing the emerging dynamic of brand-consumer collaboration (and thereby, loyalty). Apple has released a flawed product and many of the the world's best programmers immediately started work to improve it. That's brand success in the 21st century, whether Apple understands that or not. (I've written more about Apple and branding at http://216.205.72.23/Departments/EtcPage/tabid/80/Default.aspx?tid=1&ContentID=1119 )
-
CAN Buy Me Love
[Read the article: What I wouldn't do for my cat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Personally, I think you pet people are crazy . . . which is fine, if you can afford it. If you get more joy out of a dog or cat than a widescreen TV or a trip to Paris, who am I to criticize? But pet owners who attack other pet owners for not treating their pets to the very best that money can buy, or who demand that everyone else recognize that they’re somehow better people because they waste good money on their pets, need to back down. As I argue in my blog, The Dawgs Are A’ight http://www.furniturestyle.com/Departments/EtcPage/tabid/80/Default.aspx?ContentID=6751&AuthorID=9 , this attitude is nothing more than the monetization of emotion. As Americans we tend to turn to the marketplace to solve our problems, including our emotional ones. Money spent—often on things that dogs and cats, being inhuman and therefore free of human vanities, could really care less about—becomes a measure of our capacity to love.
I also recommend the following NPR story, about how this country has an easier time passing laws protecting cats and dogs abroad than helping oppressed workers.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17358785
-
There is so much middle ground for Hillary
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't get why everyone always says there's no middle ground with Clinton and that you "either love her or hate her." I'm an Obama supporter, and no great fan of the campaign Clinton's running. But mostly, well, as Obama put it, I guess "she's likable enough" ( I might add: "In a pinch, like if it were her v. McCain and his bloodlust for Iran"). This doesn't undermine the central argument of the article--it might even strengthen it insofar as the real dynamic might be you either think she's likable enough or you hate her. . . Most of the people I talk to her are pretty lukewarm about her, from the liberals who think she's always gotten an unfair rap to the conservatives who really did hate her a decade ago.
In fact, I wonder if there's mostly middle ground with Clinton, at least among ordinary voters. Do any of these positive/negative perception polls include "ho-hum" as a response. They really should.
-
Reap what you sow
[Read the article: Randi Rhodes calls Hillary Clinton a whore]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a big difference between Randi Rhodes calling Clinton a fucking whore and a sweet elderly lady saying she hates Clinton. The first is, indeed, an ad hominem attack, and a rather clumsy one at that. The latter, though, is just a woman who’s articulating her dislike for Clinton, and is nothing to feel queasy about. As this whole process got underway, I was really torn between Clinton and Obama. After Clinton’s unprincipled, dishonest, entitled, condescending campaign, though, I don’t like her much either—she’s not just insulted a candidate I prefer, she’s insulted Obama supporters like me for being naïve just because we’re more impressed with Obama’s approach than her claims to “experience.” I guess if she somehow manipulates her way into the nomination, as bad as she is, well, McCain’s a disaster waiting to happen. But I won’t be volunteering for her, and I’ll be holding my nose when I vote for her. That’s not because of the media, Obama, or anything other than her. She chose to run a cynical campaign. Dislike (and even hatred) is what she’s sown.