There. I've said it. David Pogue of the New York Times is a charlatan. A pretender to knowledge that he does not possess.
David Pogue has the position of personal technology columnist for the New York Times and also contributes his technology expertise to CBS News. That he has a large vocabulary and is able to effectively rub two words together there is no argument. The man can write. That he edits a wonderfully helpful and readable series of "Missing Manuals" and books of technical "Annoyances" I not only do not deny but I praise, use and recommend them. The man can edit a tech book like nobody else.
There's no doubt that he is a fan of techie gizmos. He certainly is able to discern good from bad and speak to their attractiveness, fun and/or their utility and usability. And most of the stuff that he writes from the viewpoint of techie-gizmo-fan is, if not spot on, then at the very least it worth reading and considering for the real-user point of view.
But when he goes off as an "expert" he really goes off. Off the track. Off the planet. Out of touch with facts. Unresearched. Goofy. Wrong.
I will give you one example of this to prove my point. Only one, though. More examples are readily available. It's hard to find a recent column entry that doesn't contain at least one dogmatic statement that is completely full of ... hot air.
Example:
In his blog for August 10, 2006, Pogue wrote a piece about "Getting Hung Up on the Apple-Microsoft War". In it he correctly -- imho -- points out the folly of the Mac vs. Windows arguments. Pogue correctly points out the silliness of the users' defenses of one against the other from both sides. Windows folks don't know what they're missing and Mac folks don't know how much they're being screwed by the man. And "the man" at Apple apparently doesn't realize that he won the war a few years back. He just needs to stop fighting the battles and pick up the pieces. (The "man" at Redmond knows the story for sure.)
Where Pogue goes off the rails is when he stops talking as an astute user and starts trying to speak as expert in the technology to which he is enamored.
It begins in this three-sentence paragraph; "Apple and many observers also point out that Mac OS X is a *better* operating system than Windows. I’m among them, especially if we’re talking about Windows XP." He's OK in the first two sentences; starting to show Mac-ish stridency but basically still speaking as a user. But he finishes it with, " Mac OS X is far more logical in structure and more refined around the edges."
What? Where does that come from? "... more logical in structure..."? "... more refined ..."? These are presented as facts but facts must be verifiable. These are opinions, they are not verifiable. It is a disservice to readers looking to Mr. Pogue for guidance that he presents them as hard fact. More logical indeed.
The idea of "more refined" is refutable on the spot. I will chose an easy nit to make my point. Walk into a computer store, any computer store, blind folded. In that store choose one each of any printer, any mouse, any monitor, any external wireless adapter and any external hard drive. Make them all have USB hardware interfaces to make sure that the ground is level. Make sure that you are blindfolded; no fair picking and choosing the "Mac Compatible".
Now go to a set of more or less equally set up computers; one a Mac OS-X and one a Windows XP PC. One by one plug in the USB devices and count how many each operating system was able to not only recognize (one point) but also immediately begin to work with as intended without loading special drivers (another point).
Windows XP will win this competition easily because, as an operating system, it is by far more "refined" than OS-X.
I'm not saying that OS-X isn't wonderful. It is. I'm definitely not saying that it won't eventually take over the market. That is entirely up to Mr. Jobs -- and which I've been saying since the advent of "NeXT".
But I'm getting off my own track, which is, Mr. Pogue being off his. As I said, that little paragraph is just the beginning. Next Pogue says, "And it’s certainly more secure. The Mac is essentially virus- and spyware-free–and no, not just because its market share is so small the virus writers don’t bother with it."
This is way off the mark Mr. Pogue. OS-X is full of holes. The same holes that riddle any UNIX variants. Any operating system for that matter The only things that really save OS-X from the embarrassment is, first, the tiny market share and, second, the same sort of head-in-the-sand attitude that, as Pogue points out himself, lets Mac fanatics forget that they're being screwed for another $130 every year or so to "upgrade" to the next OS-X major security release.
Nearly all of the following points in his article are flippant and un- or under qualified opinions stated as facts. Market share is next and Pogue argues that corporate sales give Windows the appearance of advantage, but if it weren't for corporate and institutional sales, Mac's presence would tumble off the bottom of the charts. And so on.
I've been a fan of Mr. Pogue's eye to fun and function and usability and his special talent for writing clearly about them while still keeping his enthusiasm. Yay enthusiasm! But, please Mr. Pogue; stick to what you know. At least make it clear when you're giving opinion and not working from facts. Your readers believe you -- don't let them down.
Leave a comment