Journalists May Be Biased Toward Apple

[mgraham333]

Journalists May Be Biased Toward Apple

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

By John C. Dvorak

As big and as important as Microsoft is, the coverage of the company is quite mediocre. This is particularly true in the mainstream press.

The reason for this is that today's newspaper and magazine tech writers know little about computers and are all Mac users. It's a fact.

This is why when Microsoft actually does have a good idea, people look to trash it out of hand. With 90 percent of the mainstream writers being Mac users, what would you expect?

The top columnists in the news and business magazines fit this model too. The technology writers fit this model. The tech writers and tech columnists for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and Fortune are all Mac users. I could list them by name, but I'd hate to leave one out. Maybe I'll blog them by name. I could list 50.

Readers should thus not be surprised by the overcoverage of Apple Computer (search). Every time Steve Jobs (search) sneezes, there is a collective chorus of "Gesundheit" from tech writers pounding away on their Macs.

This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer.

With no Microsoft-centric frame of reference, Microsoft cannot look good. The company essentially brought this on itself with various PR and marketing policies that discouraged knowledgeable coverage. I'll save those complaints for a future gripe session.

What's bad for Microsoft is that the bias against it is subtle — kind of like any sort of media bias, whether religious or political. As one critic once said regarding the supposed left-wing slant of the daily news media, "It's not what they write, it's what they write ABOUT that matters." Story selection.

Microsoft can roll out a dozen cool products, and the media goes ga-ga over the video iPod (search) — a rather late-to-market Apple product. They all swoon over the prospect of paying $2 to download an otherwise free TV show so they can have the privilege of watching it on a 2-inch screen.

The newsroom editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see this bias. Besides, they use Macs too. There are entire newsrooms, such as the one at Forbes, that consist entirely of Macintoshes. Apparently nobody but me finds this weird.

Even Jack Shafer, who recently wrote about Apple's skewed coverage in Slate, fails to point out the connection between the skewed coverage and the existence of this peculiar conflict of interest based on the national writers' use of Macs.

I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they, to a man (I've never confronted a female reporter about this), all say that they use a Mac "because it is better." Right. And that attitude doesn't affect coverage now, does it?

Now this phenomenon is nothing new. I mean the phenomenon that an analyst will compare everything to his or her personal preferences, and naturally do it to excess.

I first observed this during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, when all the writers, myself included, used WordStar (search). Everyone used WordStar. I would run into writers here and there and grill them about what they used. Anne Rice used WordStar, for example.

Thus, when a new word processor came out, it was naturally compared to WordStar and, unless it was a clone of WordStar, it was always given poor marks. It was only the catastrophic failure of the WordStar company that ever allowed the competition to take over.

Probably the smartest thing Microsoft could ever have done was copy as much of the Mac OS (search) as it could insofar as look and feel were concerned, since in the final analysis there were customers doing AB comparisons between the Mac and the PC—which kept the PC on the desktop. The PC was cheaper and seemed about the same functionally.

Microsoft should make some headway with this biased crowd once the fanciful Xbox 360 (search) arrives. It's got a creative GUI, is easy to use and navigate, and kind of has a Mac look to it. It also interfaces perfectly with the iPod. "Oh golly gee whiz wow!" And that feature alone will be the clincher.

source: Fox News/PC Mag

[Big Wheel]

I've dug Dvorak's writing for years and I think this hits pretty close to the mark.

Still not a big fan of Microsoft, though.

[7/4]

Well - yeha, no kidding.

[mgraham333]

I've dug Dvorak's writing for years and I think this hits pretty close to the mark.

Still not a big fan of Microsoft, though.

←

Back when I susbscribed to PCMag, I always flipped to John C. Dvorak's Inside Track first! He was usually way ahead of the pack when it came to reviewing new technology and tech biz happenings.

[chandra]

Dvorak is a good writer and can put together a cogent argument but I don't think the central thesis holds here.

From what I can tell, the skewed positive coverage of Apple is only during the post iPod period but the tech writers and journalists were using Macs forever.

Microsoft releases so many products and releases over the course of the year, the coverage gets diluted on a per product basis.. That does not mean they don't get positive coverage, it is just spread out. Microsoft also has this habit of releasing something not so excelletn first and then incrementally improve it over the years. Apple on the other hand is good at 'wow'ing the industry in the first release. Case in point: Media center PC from microsoft. It is a fairly good product now but not necessarily when it was originally released a few years back. (But from what I see and hear, that is beginning to change at Microsoft.)

Finally, I think Dvorak has forgotten the hype and free advertisement Microsoft got during the Windows '95 launch. I did not even have a windows computer then, I almost bought Windows '95

[kh1958]

It's not bias to point out what is obvious to anyone who uses both a PC and a Mac (Mac is better).

Edited October 20, 2005 by kh1958

[Claude]

I think journalists especially like Apple because of several factors:

- History: newspapers and magazines need good desktop publishing software, and that has always been a stronghold of MacIntosh computers. In the early 90's, Quark Xpress and Adobe Pagemaker (?) were only available for the Mac. Windows was not competitive in that domain. That's why all publishing companies opted for Macs, also for those journalists who only need a simple word processor.

- Apple is simply sexier. It offers the complete package (hardware and software), while Microsoft only sells software. Since the first iMac in 1998, Apple has focussed heavily on design, when most Wintel PCs still looked dull. So Apple is a fashionable product, while a Windows PC is just a plain machine one prefers to hide in a corner. Same for the iPod vs other MP3 players, who may be better and cheaper but not nearly as attractive.

- Apple is the underdog, while Microsoft is a quasi-monopolist. Of course everyone likes the underdog, even when one prefers to buy the cheaper Windows computer.

Edited October 20, 2005 by Claude

[7/4]

I think journalists especially like Apple because of several factors:

- History: newspapers and magazines need good desktop publishing software, and that has always been a stronghold of MacIntosh computers. In the early 90's, Quark Xpress and Adobe Pagemaker (?) were only available for the Mac. Windows was not competitive in that domain. That's why all publishing companies opted for Macs, also for those journalists who only need a simple word processor.

Pagemaker was around in 88-89. The problem was the machines were not fast enough to run Windows.

[medjuck]

What are the great Microsoft produts we're not hearing about? I have Office and I fucking hate it.

[Christiern]

Clause: "Apple is the underdog..."

Yes, in much the same way that Rolls Royce is.

[Jim Alfredson]

What are the great Microsoft produts we're not hearing about?  I have Office and I fucking hate it.

←

Office is an absolutely infuriating program. I really wish Adobe would make a word processor that was fully compatable with Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Didn't Microsoft bail out Apple a few years ago? So aren't they getting the benefits of any Apple hype too?

Mike

[mgraham333]

It's not bias to point out what is obvious to anyone who uses both a PC and a Mac (Mac is better).

←

But...

[kh1958]

If you think the majority is the best judge, why are you on a jazz board?

It's not bias to point out what is obvious to anyone who uses both a PC and a Mac (Mac is better).

←

But...

←

[Christiern]

mgraham, your but is a measure of quantity rather than quality. Payless probably outsells the competition, but would you walk in their shoes if you had a choice?

[mgraham333]

mgraham, your but is a measure of quantity rather than quality. Payless probably outsells the competition, but would you walk in their shoes if you had a choice? 

←

By mentioning payless I guess you are bringing up cost as one explanation for the dominance of MS/PC. I think that has a lot to do with it. Apples/Macs have always been more expensive than PCs because there's only one source.

In fact, I think one of the biggest blunders in the history of Apple, perhaps in the history of the tech industry is Apple's refusal to license it's hardware architecture. IBM did that with the PC architecture and PCs became the dominant platform. Didn't turn out all that well for IBM (although there are tons of other factors involved in that equation). But had Apple not been so short sighted, and greedy I think the Apple/Mac platform might be more widely adopted.

But that raises a question if Macs are soooooo much better can cost alone explain their lack of market share?

[mgraham333]

If you think the majority is the best judge, why are you on a jazz board?

Every once in a while I feeling figuring out the motivation behind majority bashing.

[Mr. Gone]

It's not bias to point out what is obvious to anyone who uses both a PC and a Mac (Mac is better).

←

Better for what? Software engineering? Gaming? CAD/CAM? Graphics? Chip Design? Multimedia? I'd say this "better" thing - surprise - depends.

Now, where's the IE versus Firefox thread?

[Claude]

But that raises a question if Macs are soooooo much better can cost alone explain their lack of market share?

←

Another important factor is that many home computers are used for games, and most games run on Windows only.

[Christiern]

mgraham:"But that raises a question if Macs are soooooo much better can cost alone explain their lack of market share?"

It's a catch-22 of sorts. PCs were much cheaper, because IBM did not exercise its proprietary rights. That resulted in systems that were much cheaper than Apples (one could even build/assemble one's own), so more people owned PCs, which gave programmers a bigger incentive to write for the PC platform. The interesting thing is that Apple sells more Macs than most PC manufacturers, because it's them against a vast number of PC'ers.

Apple is always ahead, of course. Windows is an attempt to emulate the Mac look, functionality and feel. Mac was the first home computer to offer a graphic interface, a mouse, a floppy disk, a hard disk, etc.

Finally, let me point out that Apple did once license it's OS to other manufacturers. There were several clones, but the change did not benefit Apple. The Steve Jobs returned to the company and changed things around. It is remarkable that Microsoft, with all its money and huge staff has not been able to innovate.

I bought my first Apple computer in 1980 (had a Tandy before then) and when the Mac came out (in 1984) I bought one of those--a great concept, I thought, but limited computer power. That changed with the Mac II, and things have steadily improved since then. In '84, I also bought a PC, but DOS was a horror and the early Windows versions were Payless to Apple's Stuart Weitzman.

Windows has come a long way as it follows the Mac trail, but the vision thing is still missing. Now that Macs will be switching to Intel chips, the future should be interesting.

Edited October 20, 2005 by Christiern

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Didn't Xerox do the first graphic interface back in 1974?

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/real-history-gui/4

Mike

[7/4]

Didn't Xerox do the first graphic interface back in 1974?

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/real-history-gui/4

Mike

←

That's where Apple lifted it from.

[JSngry]

The work done at the Xerox/Palo Alto facility is a fascinating subject.

[Christiern]

Didn't Xerox do the first graphic interface back in 1974?

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/real-history-gui/4

Mike

←

Yes, that's why I said that Apple was the first home computer to offer these things. Steve Jobs saw a mouse and graphic interface while given a tour of Xerox, and took it from there.

Apropos vision, Jobs was also the first to get rid of the floppy disk. Jobs also missed a few times, but he was mostly right.

[DukeCity]

I've been a Mac user since about '91, and last year I almost jumped ship to the Windows dark side. Cheap machines and tons of software was enticing. Then there was a flurry of viruses (virii?) going around, and I found myself being thankful that, since the Mac has such a small market share, I don't have to worry about a virus being written to hit the Mac OS (knock on wood).

So I upgraded to a G4 Powerbook. Not perfect, but it works, and yes, it is kinda sexy:

Edited October 21, 2005 by DukeCity