Because he writes stuff as good as this:
“As for Google? Well, the death of Wave doesn’t matter to Google. They still have their ad business, and their search, and their maps, and their mail, and their mobile OS, and a hundred other projects going on at once.
Is that their problem? Has Google become a bunch of technology spammers? Is their strategy to simply flood the world with as many ideas as possible in the hopes that one or two percent of them will become hits without any further work?
At one end of the Innovation Spectrum, there are the companies that make little novelty lights and fans that plug into your USB port. At the other end are the truly important companies that are willing to eat it for years because they’re certain of two things: that the technology they’ve developed will inevitably redefine its product category or even define a brand new one, and that neither of those things can happen unless a large company is persistent, vocal, and consistent.
It’s a sloppily-defined spectrum and there’s no numerical grading. But with Wednesday’s announcement, I think Google nudged itself closer to the novelty-fan group.”
In search of a headline, Marketing Magazine cites a YouGov survey as showing that the iPad is only “reaching out to the converted“:
“In the two months since the iPad launched in the UK, YouGov has found that 96% of the 713 iPad owners surveyed owned products such as an iPod, iPhone or Mac.”
Why would this be a surprise? Given that Apple utterly dominates the MP3 player category with over 70% market share, it would be a surprise if most people surveyed hadn’t owned an Apple product. When you’ve sold over 225 million music players alone, you’d be hard-pushed to find anyone likely to buy something like the iPad who hasn’t bought an Apple product.
Patents are hard to understand. If any government wants to reduce the costs of running a business quickly and easily, it should revamp the system of patents to make them easy for people who aren’t lawyers to read, and harder to actually get in the first place.
So it’s no surprise that there’s been a massive amount of misreading of Apple’s patent application on “Systems and methods for accessing travel services using a portable electronic device”. What’s made it easier to misread is Apple’s – frankly stupid – use of FutureTap‘s interface for its excellent Where To? application in the descriptive part of the patent. FutureTap, understandably, are miffed because it looks like Apple is trying to steal their ideas.
And the coverage on the back of it follows suit. John Brownlee at Cult of Mac titled his “Apple submits software patent for other developer’s app, including title and design“. Om Malik at GigaOm (probably my favourite tech site) was so astounded by what he thinks Apple is doing he had to preface his post title with “Not a joke“. Continue reading