# Toronto Star iPod / Apple article - My Letter to author and Editor - And replies



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The other day, I read an article in the Toronto Star entitled, *Hutsul: iPod has fallen far from the Apple tree*
Read here

I haven't replied to an article in a long time, but this one kind of got under my skin, so I sent the following email to both the author and the Toronto Star editor. Here's my email, and their replies:



> *Subject: Huge inaccuracies in article, "Hutsul: iPod has fallen far from
> the Apple tree"*
> 
> Yes, I'm sure you're getting lots of emails from people who use Apple
> ...


Here are the replies:



> Hi [ehMax],
> 
> The Letters editor forwarded your email to this office.
> Sneakernet is written as a column which has a different tone than a regular news
> ...


And reply from the author:



> Hi [ehMax],
> Thanks for your note. I appreciate your insights... I have to admit, I was flamed
> pretty hard yesterday. Actually, you could say I was nuked. I suppose I set myself
> up for it.
> ...


Kudos to the The Star and the author for their replies. :clap: 

Takes me back to Guy Kawasaki days.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> much more friendlier


grammar checker down?

Otherwise, well done. You didn't even have to use profanity!


----------



## apple=god (May 21, 2005)

I think that chris raises some valid arguments, there computers are lacking in something NEW and exciting. I would like to see some thing affordable and breath taking from apple in the next little bit. You are right though, he had some of those figures and arguments completely wrong! iTunes is not flailing, and the ROKR is a crap phone. I would like to take this opourtunity to say: Why did it take so bloody long for aple to produce a DAP with video features, if the ipod linux team could do it 6 months in advance!! why couldn't apple do it with all there immense resources,. It really was disapointing hwo long it took. Also that screen is not fun to watch movies on (--hugs psp--).


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

What a retard. In his apology he says " I was wrong in not reporting that the company has showed signs of growth in their computer sales department". SIGNS OF GROWTH???? In an industry where nearly every other computer manufacturer is in a state of decline, Apple had 26% growth over last year (sorry ehmax, I'm quoting Adam Chritianson's report on the Maccast from a few days ago). As far as a backlash against apple? I haven't heard a bad word about apple in over a year, and I can assure you that previous to that, a week wouldn't pass without someone making an Apple sucks comment.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

apple=god said:


> ...their (edit sp.) computers are lacking in something NEW and exciting.


Give an example from the PC side. Apple has built in iSights with iMac and Front Row.



apple=god said:


> I would like to see some thing affordable and breath taking from apple in the next little bit.


Any iMac.



apple=god said:


> ...the ROKR is a crap phone.


So, take it up with Motorola.



apple=god said:


> Why did it take so bloody long for aple to produce a DAP with video features...Also that screen is not fun to watch movies on


The iPod is first and foremost a digital _audio_ device with video capability, not the other way around.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Nice one, Mr Mayor.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

I read this article early this morning off of macsurfer, was about to rev up the fire and brimstone.... and then thought, "Aw, screw it!".

Kudos for picking up the torch, boss.


----------



## .tony (Apr 20, 2004)

andreww said:


> As far as a backlash against apple? I haven't heard a bad word about apple in over a year, and I can assure you that previous to that, a week wouldn't pass without someone making an Apple sucks comment.


I believe he may be referring to the articles every week that pop up that say "SO AND SO goes after Apple stronghold", or "COMPANY NAME comes out with iPod-killer".

I think he uses the word "backlash" incorrectly. Nonetheless, I'm so tired of seeing the above headlines. I wish these reporters would write about a new product's merits, maybe even compare it to the iPod, but let the reader be the judge of whether or not it'll be an "iPod killer". I esp don't like when they talk about an MP3-player - the iPod is more then just a music player but they just don't get that.

The company to knock Apple off its perch (if at all) will be the company that listens to its consumers and produces a product that the masses want, and is easy to use. Everyone is so busy trying to copy the iPod that they forget about the customer base.

Phew, sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.  (And kinda went off topic, sorry)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

.tony said:


> I'm so tired of seeing the above headlines. I wish these reporters would write about a new product's merits, maybe even compare it to the iPod, but let the reader be the judge of whether or not it'll be an "iPod killer".


Frankly, it's embarrassing for the competition, for NONE of them have even come close to being able to kill the iPod. In recent weeks, I think that there's been less of such hyperbolic headlines. Maybe the press is starting to clue in?


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

andreww said:


> What a retard...


I actually know Chris personally (he's a friend of my old roommate) and I can attest that he is not mentally handicapped.

Doesn't mean I agree with what he wrote (I'll tell him to run his next Apple article by me first ) but he's a heckuva guy and I enjoy reading his column.

He's also an EXTREMELY gifted <A HREF="http://www.hutsul.com/Home.php">illustrator</A>.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

While there are misguided arguments, I think the article does bring up a few points that might be worth considering:

iTunes and it's bloat. iTunes is now a 40MB application (a bit on the large side) and on my computer will easily consume 50MB of real memory when it's playing and I have an iPod plugged in. (Only about 20 when neither or just about 25 when playing).

Is iTunes getting overlly bloated? Or is slowly moving that way. I know for myself it's not as fast as it used to be. I suspect the majority of the speed decrease can be blamed on a much larger music library but when applying album artwork or changing ID3 tags across multiple songs it's downright painful.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

CarbonKen said:


> I actually know Chris personally (he's a friend of my old roommate) and I can attest that he is not mentally handicapped.
> 
> Doesn't mean I agree with what he wrote (I'll tell him to run his next Apple article by me first ) but he's a heckuva guy and I enjoy reading his column.
> 
> He's also an EXTREMELY gifted <A HREF="http://www.hutsul.com/Home.php">illustrator</A>.


Nice stuff! Does he freelance for Dose? They seem to use a variety of styles that he seems to work in.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Not sure if he freelances for Dose, I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Chealion said:


> iTunes and it's bloat.


This tends to happen as large, often used applications mature. 

One of the things that struck me when Safari was first released was that they were proud of the fact that it was 'lean'. I liked that. More applications need to trim down and whittle away excess code and useless features. Not sure how large Safari is now.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I thought the main point of the article (or what I took to be the main point) was a good one. He is afraid Apple is losing its focus and relying on iPod sales. 

It's not SO hard to believe that, 10 years from now, kids will say, "iPod? what's an iPod?" It's the kind of product that typically doesn't have longevity. Know anyone still using a walkman? Will the hot item in 10 years have an apple on it?


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

"walkman? what's a walkman?"
<smirk>
s.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

nxnw said:


> I thought the main point of the article (or what I took to be the main point) was a good one. He is afraid Apple is losing its focus and relying on iPod sales.
> 
> It's not SO hard to believe that, 10 years from now, kids will say, "iPod? what's an iPod?" It's the kind of product that typically doesn't have longevity. Know anyone still using a walkman? Will the hot item in 10 years have an apple on it?


I don't think the iPod will be disappearing any time soon. The iMac has been around for 7 years and still continues to thrive. Products rarely ever keep it's "hot" appeal with the public... there's always something new on the horizon. But that isn't to say the iPod won't continue to be a widely-used product. I think it's ready for a facelift, though... with the screen size and battery life being priority number 1 for me, IMHO. Perhaps Apple is working on a brand new GUI to counter the patent SNAFU they've come across recently.

That aside, If you look at the history of Apple over the last 10, even 15 years you'll realize that Apple is at a much better place, regardless if they're seemingly focusing slightly more to the iPod/iTMS. (Remember when they lost $740 million dollars in the first quarter of 1996? :yikes

I don't believe that to be the case, however. Apple obviously has a lot on their plate with the shift to Intel... new hardware (PowerMac, Powerbook, iBook, eMac, Mini, and iMac) and new software: iLife 2006, iWorks, Express/Pro apps, etc. all for Mac OS X Intel not to mention the next Mac OS X release itself.

Usually, the quieter Apple is... the better. I'm expecting big things in the coming year


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Yah, even if no one owns a walkman anymore everybody still knows what one is.

So in 10 years the iPod may not exist as a brand (but 2006 is already it's 5th year), but people will still know what it is.

They'll just be listening to the embedded music chip in their head.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Carex - Safari the application itself is 20MB, while the necessary framework to run it needs for rendering (which is normally included in a broswer) is another 8MB. I wouldn't say Safari is bloated, but it's definitely not as lean as it used to be.

As a comparasion Firefox is 28MB, so we're looking at the same size roughly.


----------

