Feedback on 'Ambrosia Releases Wiretap Studio 1.0' News Story [Archive]

TheSlush

Oct 11, 2007, 11:34 PM

Re: http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/11/ambrosia-releases-wiretap-studio-1-0/

I know this has come up before in other threads. And I guess that I respect the general concept of Mac Rumors' right to explore various types of content, to an extent. It just seems to me that miscellaneous announcements and reviews of various 3rd-party hardware and software do not belong as front-page items on a site called "Mac Rumors." Such items are out of place -- especially on page one -- as they are clearly not newsy/rumor-y, and inherently carry only niche interest.

Donnacha

Oct 12, 2007, 12:41 AM

Look, the people who get it into their heads to object loudly about this sort of thing do not reflect the vast majority of readers.

Those of us who are not interested in this software or Macheist or whatever are fully capable of reading the headline and not reading the article; those of us who are interested, however, are alerted to something we want to know, which is why we subscribe to the Macrumors feed.

Arn, please don't let the self-righteous frigtards deter you from keeping us informed.

chr1s60

Oct 12, 2007, 01:08 AM

I find nothing wrong with this being on the front page of MacRumors. Not only does it sound like a cool product, but the company that distributes it has been in many threads over the past few weeks concerning iToner. It is acceptable if for no other reason because a large number of members use and enjoy iToner. From time to time it is nice to be alerted about new products.

phil83

Oct 12, 2007, 01:32 AM

nevermind

Donnacha

Oct 12, 2007, 01:46 AM

You can find comments about MacRumors' coverage of 3rd party products in this feedback thread. It's probably time to start up that discussion again.

[Relevant posts have been moved to that thread]

Just for the record, I wrote one of the posts that was moved from this thread and I feel somewhat manipulated because it now appears to be supporting posts written a month ago that I wasn't even aware of.

Context is important and this sort of high-handed maneuver shows a great disrespect for your readers and the time we put into writing our contributions. It was wrong.

arn

Oct 12, 2007, 01:57 AM

Just for the record, I wrote one of the posts that was moved from this thread and I feel somewhat manipulated because it now appears to be supporting posts written a month ago that I wasn't even aware of.

All posts have been moved into a new thread that should be contextually relevant.

arn

Donnacha

Oct 12, 2007, 02:10 AM

All posts have been moved into a new thread.

arn
I believe the comments were valid on both sides and were, anyway, 3-to-1 supportive of your decision to explore this type of coverage; I'm surprised you consider valid, on-topic discussion to be such a danger and am disappointed you felt the need to sweep it under the carpet like this.

I will be less eager to post in the future.

arn

Oct 12, 2007, 02:16 AM

Donnacha

Oct 12, 2007, 02:20 AM

It's not a sweep-under the carpet situation. It's keeping story threads on-topic. Site policy discussions about whether or not a story should be on page 1 or page 2 or not at all should not take over the news story threads.

arn
Okay, fair enough, it is annoying when threads get badly off-track although I'm not sure if that was really shaping up to happen in this case. Still, I guess after all these years you probably have a sixth sense telling you when something needs to be nipped in the bud.

arn

Oct 12, 2007, 02:27 AM

Okay, fair enough, it is annoying when threads get badly off-track although I'm not sure if that was really shaping up to happen in this case. Still, I guess after all these years you probably have a sixth sense telling you when something needs to be nipped in the bud.

I would have let a few posts go, but phil83's post was a bit more heated a response, so I figured that was going to tip it way off topic. phil's since edited out the post, making my actions seem more arbitrary.

arn

Butthead

Oct 12, 2007, 02:43 AM

I believe the comments were valid on both sides and were, anyway, 3-to-1 supportive of your decision to explore this type of coverage; I'm surprised you consider valid, on-topic discussion to be such a danger and am disappointed you felt the need to sweep it under the carpet like this.

I will be less eager to post in the future.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused, the thread feedback for the prior Ambrosia announcement on front pages news, had 100% agreement from posters that the did *not* want to see this coverage in the Front page section. And I will agree, so what if I am intelligent enough (lol) to bypass it...same can be said of all OT threads, duplicative threads that get closed, etc.

Just for the record, I wrote one of the posts that was moved from this thread and I feel somewhat manipulated because it now appears to be supporting posts written a month ago that I wasn't even aware of.

Context is important and this sort of high-handed maneuver shows a great disrespect for your readers and the time we put into writing our contributions. It was wrong.

I did not see that post, it's in this thread then?

I would have let a few posts go, but phil83's post was a bit more heated a response, so I figured that was going to tip it way off topic. phil's since edited out the post, making my actions seem more arbitrary.

arn

So what about putting these types of stories on MacBytes or another forum other than front page news, which seems to be the main objections of most??? I see no response from arn on that question in this thread or the prior feedback thread. What objection does arn have to putting these 3rd party product stories, which many feel to be out of place in the front page news, into another forum?

kainjow

Oct 12, 2007, 02:48 AM

telecomm

Oct 12, 2007, 03:22 AM

My opinion:

I still think the front page is not the right place. We don't need another Mac website reporting Mac software updates. I especially feel that Wiretap Studio is nothing special, and that it is a niche product. Same could go for Acorn, although that was page 2. But why not all the other software updates coming out? Why pick and choose?

I think MR should innovate in reporting the news in other ways. We have seen that community-based content is the "hot" thing now (digg, reddit, etc.), and since one of MR's strengths is its community, maybe something could be done in that area.

Absolutely agreed.

I thought the general consensus the last time this issue came up was that the content of such announcements/articles is fine, it's just not well suited to a main page article. Add a new section on software releases, reviews, etc.

Stuffit Expander recently went to version 12, but I don't want to see it on the main page.

virus1

Oct 12, 2007, 03:53 AM

Cool, but WHY AND SINCE WHEN DO WE CARE?

Wonder how much this article cost.

NewSc2

Oct 12, 2007, 03:55 AM

Cool, but WHY AND SINCE WHEN DO WE CARE?

Wonder how much this article cost.

Ambrosia's the same company that puts out iToner... so if you were one of the thousands who visit this site who were relieved that Ambrosia put out a ringtone software, then you (like me) might be interested in a software that records audio directly from iTunes, Quicktime, or through your inputs.

pavelbure

Oct 12, 2007, 04:32 AM

why shouldn't this get a little attention ? heck, every time some tiny bit of news comes out for that overpriced phone we have front page news for it. i guarantee once apps start being sold for it that will be front page news too, probably what apps they are will be included also.

dAlen

Oct 12, 2007, 04:34 AM

Cool, but WHY AND SINCE WHEN DO WE CARE?

Wonder how much this article cost.
Well, for those who dont care, suppose there is no obligation to read the article.
On the other hand, I have downloaded the trial and am watching the tutorials - it seems to be pretty cool.

Understandably there are those who say this is a mac 'rumors' site, and should be limited to as such in terms of what articles are dipslayed - but it seems the trend of recent times is to give more substance, and personally Im fine with that. I quite like having one place to go to that has my mac rumors as well as what I can possibly do with the mac I already have...this includes reviews (which was done not long ago on this site for this same software.)

True, they may eventually want to rebrand if they continue this direction.
Kind of like apple dropping the term 'computer' from "apple computer".
This may help them get into some of these conferences, which would be nice ...as I totally dig how they have the auto-news-update feature without refreshing my web-browser.

Peace

dAlen

cr2sh

Oct 12, 2007, 07:16 AM

I applaud MR for trying new things and putting something DIFFERENT on the front page! I come to this site every day to read up and see what's new in the mac world... and a lot of the time the answer is "oh nothing.. that same story has been there for two days."

Nice job guys... keep us informed.

:)

DeaconGraves

Oct 12, 2007, 07:37 AM

I believe Circus' Ponies Notebook program just got a small update. Should that get a news post on the front page? Probably not.

I understand that MacRumors is receieving no compensation for this. But I was first attracted to MR due to its fairly straightforward reporting of Apple News without much editorialization. If I needed some commentary, I could just click on the forms and read all the trolling :p.

But placing specific news of certain 3rd Party programs releases adds quite a large amount of editorializing to the front page. I believe arn went on record on the previos "Feedback" thread, that the news was posted due to the fact that Wiretap had some very neat and innovative features (not quoted exactly). But any program that does not make the front page of MR can officially be categorized as not being innovative, or worse, not endorsed by the MR staff.

There's also the issue that it clearly looks like the MR readers aren't caring. Take a look at the front page now. Everything directly related to a mac product has at least 100 comments, including recaps on Leopard features we already knew about. The wiretap story and the Sharp LCD story have less than 25 (at the time of this posting).

My opinion? How about a page 3 (for 3rd Party Apps)? There's at least a small market for that, and any 3rd party program news that MR feels like posting could go here (that includes MS Office and Virtualization programs, just to be fair).

On a last note, while I understand the point of segregating the feedback forum, it does seem like Big Brother's just hiding the criticism of itself. At least post a link to this forum on the front page.

TheT

Oct 12, 2007, 07:43 AM

I haven't been commenting on MacRumors for a while now, but it has a top spot in my bookmarks bar and I immediately check if the RSS feed has a new item; this is because MacRumors (for me) means high-quality, low-frequency news. This Ambrosia thing is not such content. Wasn't there a story about this before? It looks like advertising to me. Sure, I am smart enough to skip "news" like this; but if this comes up regularly, I will be smart enough to just stop reading MacRumors.
It's not like I think I am the one to decide what direction MacRumors should take; but I think I represent one of many readers of MacRumors who don't participate in the forums that much but do read your news (and view and click your ads). How about a poll on page one about this?

fregedegpo

Oct 12, 2007, 08:00 AM

I just wanted to mention that I too see this as cheapening the site and also it is odd that only this software has had the spotlight put so brightly on it. You have posted twice now about it, as if it were a revolutionary piece of software, which is most certainly is not. It may be cool, but every month there is some cool new software. What makes this so special?

If you were every week spotlighting some new cool software it would seem a little more fair, but as you have done it here, it doesn't seem impartial.

Also I agree this is somewhat hidden. I only knew to look for it remembering that there was a link last time. There should be a link within text on front page.

Re: http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/11/ambrosia-releases-wiretap-studio-1-0/

I know this has come up before in other threads. And I guess that I respect the general concept of Mac Rumors' right to explore various types of content, to an extent. It just seems to me that miscellaneous announcements and reviews of various 3rd-party hardware and software do not belong as front-page items on a site called "Mac Rumors." Such items are out of place -- especially on page one -- as they are clearly not newsy/rumor-y, and inherently carry only niche interest.

abrooks

Oct 12, 2007, 09:09 AM

redAPPLE

Oct 12, 2007, 09:13 AM

I just wanted to mention that I too see this as cheapening the site and also it is odd that only this software has had the spotlight put so brightly on it.

If you were every week spotlighting some new cool software it would seem a little more fair, but as you have done it here, it doesn't seem impartial.

this might seem off topic, but you want to talk about cheapening? it started once we had this forum. (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86)

actually i don't mind having such page 1 topics. if macrumors gets ad money for this, i won't even mind. as long as it is nicely done.

id really rather have this type of "ads" (which some users call) than those flashing, blinking ads. besides, this is a good way to keep the site "fresh", during the slow apple news days (especially regardings macs ;))

whenpaulsparks

Oct 12, 2007, 09:34 AM

since this is not a rumor, i support creating a new section (tab?) of macrumors that contains product announcements, i think it's a great idea, because the MacBytes section is too chock full of opinion crap and analyst poo. but i don't believe it should be on the main articles section of the home page.

my $0.02.

ZachPruckowski

Oct 12, 2007, 09:35 AM

Agreed, this is blatant paid advertising being wrapped up in poor excuses.

This there any evidence that this is, in fact, paid promotion? I was under the impression that it was unpaid.

DeaconGraves

Oct 12, 2007, 09:48 AM

this might seem off topic, but you want to talk about cheapening? it started once we had this forum. (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86)

LOL, but honestly I don't have much of a problem with forum's regarding stuff like this. Its as valid a discussion topic as iPhone hacking in a sense.

actually i don't mind having such page 1 topics. if macrumors gets ad money for this, i won't even mind. as long as it is nicely done.

id really rather have this type of "ads" (which some users call) than those flashing, blinking ads. besides, this is a good way to keep the site "fresh", during the slow apple news days (especially regardings macs ;))

Amen to the flashing ads (which are more ironic then anything else when there's a big Blackberry add right below an iPhone article). And if MR wants to start collecting money off articles like this, I have no problem (as long as there is a disclaimer that its a paid advertisement).

But again, this is MacRumors not MacCoolProgramsYouMightWantToTry. The focus should stick to that or there should be a new part of the site directed towards this (although, seriously, there are too many of those sites out there already).

wongulous

Oct 12, 2007, 09:51 AM

The website is called MacRumors, the tab on the top to refer to the section of the website is called "Mac Rumors," and there is already an existing structure of news segmentation in that same tab row.

Page 2 has stories such as "Trillian coming to Mac" and "Zune 2 on Thursday." There's an iPhone section to further segment the news because even Apple's own iPhone, heavily-rumored and running OS X as it is, does not belong within the definition of "Mac Rumors."

But some niche third party shareware somehow belongs? How?

I just don't get this and to me this is clutter. This spells an on-coming decline in what had for years been my favorite Mac-rumor-related website, unless things change.

notjustjay

Oct 12, 2007, 10:32 AM

My take:

I like being informed about cool new software. The problem is this is a can of worms: What's considered cool? What's considered new? The particular case of some new audio editing software sounds good to me, but some others might not care at all.

I realize this site is called MacRumors, and agree that Mac rumors should remain the core of the site. However, we've already spread a ways beyond that -- iPhone, Apple TV, iPods, the digital music industry, etc., are not, strictly speaking, Mac rumors, but of course, obviously related. I also feel enough a part of the Mac-using community that I come here not just for the rumors anymore, but for the many discussions going on (including many that have absolutely nothing to do with Macs or Apple!)

So I think it's OK to take a few liberties with the occasional "community interest" story.

Whether or not they belong on Page 1, as opposed to Page 2, a theoretical Page 3, or some other specialized area, is up for debate and may depend on how often a "cool new piece of software" gets reported. I don't care where it goes, but I want to be kept in the loop.

(I visit Macintouch occasionally, and I appreciate that they highlight software updates. I could go there for that purpose, but I like it here better. :) )

rockosmodurnlif

Oct 12, 2007, 11:33 AM

Well, for those who dont care, suppose there is no obligation to read the article.
On the other hand, I have downloaded the trial and am watching the tutorials - it seems to be pretty cool.

Understandably there are those who say this is a mac 'rumors' site, and should be limited to as such in terms of what articles are dipslayed - but it seems the trend of recent times is to give more substance, and personally Im fine with that. I quite like having one place to go to that has my mac rumors as well as what I can possibly do with the mac I already have...this includes reviews (which was done not long ago on this site for this same software.)

True, they may eventually want to rebrand if they continue this direction.
Kind of like apple dropping the term 'computer' from "apple computer".
This may help them get into some of these conferences, which would be nice ...as I totally dig how they have the auto-news-update feature without refreshing my web-browser.

Peace

dAlen

So will this site become my one-stop shop for all OS X releases? Will I be able to say good-bye to my VersionTracker (http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/) email because there are 28 releases between when WireTap appeared on VersionTracker yesterday and as of this posting. Why don't those 28 releases get coverage as well?

Oh and let me fix the first sentence in your post: Well, for those who dont care, suppose there is no obligation to read the advertisement.
- note: emphasis added, word replaced by me.

lawcomic

Oct 12, 2007, 11:40 AM

How dare a private forum showcase a product produced by a sponsor!

arn

Oct 12, 2007, 12:20 PM

Agreed, this is blatant paid advertising being wrapped up in poor excuses.

As has been said before. this is not paid advertising.

arn

MacNut

Oct 12, 2007, 01:16 PM

I see this site as a technology site that reports Apple news. We discuss a lot more then Apple products so why not branch out to other cool things. I for one would rather see something other then the iPhone for a change. For those arguing advertising you can make the argument that the iPhone is getting more publicity because of this site.

rockosmodurnlif

Oct 12, 2007, 02:17 PM

As has been said before. this is not paid advertising.

arn

I thought "where" so I did a search and here it is: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=354704

In fact, I'll repost arn's explanation or the part that applies to this thread.

To calm the suspicious, this is not an advertisement, and we receive no direct financial gain for this content. Instead, it's to expand a little bit of our content in a meaningful and appropriate way.

...

In trade for exclusive content, which means we're not just republishing what every other site has, which has value to the site. That is our "compensation".

arn

So I will recant my previous objection as this as an advertisement but I will continue to say that the front page is the wrong place for these articles. For many people these articles do not pass the smell test and suggest a relationship between MacRumors and the developer that may not be there. The stated goal of Mac Rumors "is to compile interesting news and rumors from all source to try to create a big picture view of what to expect from Apple, Inc" which is what people expect on the front page when they visit. Not exclusive MacRumors content on as yet unreleased or recently released software. The release of Wiretap Studio in no way relates to Apple, Inc. other than it is Mac OS X software.

I'll say something else since it was in the original preview article and if memory serves was promised in the release article, visitors do not come expecting reviews of aforementioned or any other software. I thought's why there are forums. I know I have previously used the forums in such a manner. Reviews of software and hardware have been front page before but those were done by other sites.

I can appreciate what arn and the rest of the MacRumors staff are going for here and I have nothing against that. I just disagree with the placement of the article. I feel there should be a link in the article on the first page asking for feedback on the placement. But as lawcomic pointed out:
How dare a private forum showcase a product produced by a sponsor!

Although I don't think Ambrosia software is a sponsor.

tobefirst

Oct 12, 2007, 03:14 PM

I don't recall this much backlash when this article (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/27/adobe-creative-suite-3-announced/) was posted. Why was everyone not up in arms then?

MacNut

Oct 12, 2007, 03:32 PM

tobefirst

Oct 12, 2007, 03:41 PM

Because everybody likes Photoshop.:rolleyes:

Oh. Well then. As long as that's settled. (;

kainjow

Oct 12, 2007, 05:43 PM

I don't recall this much backlash when this article (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/27/adobe-creative-suite-3-announced/) was posted. Why was everyone not up in arms then?

Because thousands of people use Adobe's products. It is a product that can influence purchases of the Mac, just like Parallels/VMware. Wiretap Studio is NOT this type of software.

rockosmodurnlif

Oct 12, 2007, 05:54 PM

I don't recall this much backlash when this article (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/27/adobe-creative-suite-3-announced/) was posted. Why was everyone not up in arms then?

I was waiting for someone to bring up Photoshop. Microsoft Office also makes the front page. No one mentioned that either but I'll stick to Photoshop. The difference is simple. Photoshop is not Wiretap Studio. Photoshop has a much greater impact on the Mac community than Wiretap Studio. When Photoshop news pops up, no thinks that it may be an advertisement. When Photoshop news is on the front page, there isn't a disclaimer anywhere in the thread that states it's not an advertisement.

It's not a matter of liking one program over the other, read the thread, the majority of posts "up in arms" are because it seems like an advertisement masquerading as an article.

TheSlush

Oct 12, 2007, 06:55 PM

I don't recall this much backlash when this article (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/27/adobe-creative-suite-3-announced/) was posted. Why was everyone not up in arms then?

That's an excellent point. Technically, I would have to say that this Adobe software announcement was also out of place on the front page.

However, I think the difference here requires a qualitative judgment of a software release's weight or import to the wider Mac/Apple "industrial complex," if you will. For instance, there is a wide sense that Adobe's ubiquitous software has been a major engine for Apple's rise through history, so this particular software suite gets -- and seemingly deserves -- special attention on any Mac/Apple site. And Microsoft's software gets special attention here as well, due to the well-publicized and historied feud between the two companies, the dominance of Microsoft on the world stage, and here again the sheer ubiquity of the Office suite of software. In other words, Adobe and Microsoft aren't just another Ambrosia releasing Mac software... they are empires whose fortunes are intimately intertwined with Apple's. So are they MacRumors front-page worthy? Yeah, I'd have to say they are.

Again, this is a qualitative judgment. Such judgments are inherently subjective to some degree, and its Arn & Co.'s call to make, so not all readers will ever be 100% satisfied with what goes where. That's life. It just seems to me that it was a poor judgment call in this case to give relatively niche software from a relatively small developer the undue and misleading prominence of front-page status.

fregedegpo

Oct 12, 2007, 07:17 PM

That's an excellent point. Technically, I would have to say that this Adobe software announcement was also out of place on the front page.

However, I think the difference here requires a qualitative judgment of a software release's weight or import to the wider Mac/Apple "industrial complex," if you will. For instance, there is a wide sense that Adobe's ubiquitous software has been a major engine for Apple's rise through history, so this particular software suite gets -- and seemingly deserves -- special attention on any Mac/Apple site. And Microsoft's software gets special attention here as well, due to the well-publicized and historied feud between the two companies, the dominance of Microsoft on the world stage, and here again the sheer ubiquity of the Office suite of software. In other words, Adobe and Microsoft aren't just another Ambrosia releasing Mac software... they are empires whose fortunes are intimately intertwined with Apple's. So are they MacRumors front-page worthy? Yeah, I'd have to say they are.

Again, this is a qualitative judgment. Such judgments are inherently subjective to some degree, and its Arn & Co.'s call to make, so not all readers will ever be 100% satisfied with what goes where. That's life. It just seems to me that it was a poor judgment call in this case to give relatively niche software from a relatively small developer the undue and misleading prominence of front-page status.

very well put. I couldn't agree more.

virus1

Oct 13, 2007, 12:43 AM

I don't recall this much backlash when this article (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/27/adobe-creative-suite-3-announced/) was posted. Why was everyone not up in arms then?

Probably because a few industries hang off Adobe's software, maybe?

There are a lot of 3rd party apps out there for the mac. Why do we only report on ambrosia?

arn

Oct 13, 2007, 01:48 AM

Thanks for the feedback.

Similar to feedback from before.

The Wiretap Studio 1.0 release article was simply a natural followup for the previous preview article, and doesn't necessarily represent taking into account any of the replies from the previous feedback thread.

arn

fregedegpo

Oct 13, 2007, 08:32 AM

Arn, why does the previous article need a followup?
Thanks for the feedback.

Similar to feedback from before.

The Wiretap Studio 1.0 release article was simply a natural followup for the previous preview article, and doesn't necessarily represent taking into account any of the replies from the previous feedback thread.

arn

n-abounds

Oct 13, 2007, 02:09 PM

This seems like a very hot topic whenever those 3rd party stories come up. I know that, for myself, I see them as advertisements. I know that Arn says they are not ads, but I'm sure if Macrumors runs enough of them, companies will start paying for the privilege. Tell me Arn would turn down free money, and when do readers know when that line has been crossed? Such is the state of the modern press.

I say we put it to a referendum. All registered users before 10/14/07 get a vote.

And Arn, I don't intend to be offensive. Just readers must always be aware of why information is being presented to them.

For example, I was recently reading the Chicago Tribune. I read a story in the Chicago Tribune about how The Economist magazine was expanding in Chicago's market. It talked about how they were going to be spending more in advertisement, including taking out ads in the Tribune. Then I couldn't help but wonder if the article itself was an ad. In what way is "The Economist boosts advertising spending in Chicago" a legitimate article? Frankly, if Macrumors continues down this path...I won't hang around.

TheSlush

Oct 13, 2007, 06:19 PM

My assessment is that what readers are primarily finding disturbing is MacRumors' quasi-nondisclosure policy on this issue. Arn has been gracious by addressing these criticisms at all. But he has not been very forthcoming and has remained very opaque about the site's experiments around this type of content. This lack of transparency -- which is completely his right -- nevertheless makes readers feel suspicious about some vague capitalistic intent (again, his right).

If MacRumors is in fact testing a strategy that involves solicitation of sponsorship or advertising directly via the site's content/news items, then this will be unpopular with the readership. It will be seen as "product placement" and as eroding the site's integrity.

I think this is really a "public relations" issue. Arn is obviously aware of the controversial nature of this content, but he remains curt and tight-lipped about his intentions. His persistent vagueness is fueling the controversy amongst our critical minority here. (The moving and reorganizing of critical posts, while perhaps technically proper, does not help the PR factor.)

Donnacha

Oct 13, 2007, 06:49 PM

(The moving and reorganizing of critical posts, while perhaps technically proper, does not help the PR factor.)
Yes, I agree; Arn seems like a nice bloke guy but I'm surprised he doesn't realize how many flags moving posts like that raises, especially for those of us who don't live in the US and are accustomed to a less controlled media.

At the end of the day, though, it is his site and he has got to chose how he balances respect for user contributions against making his job as admin easier - perhaps it is not even a choice, perhaps the massive boom in activity means that MR must become a more controlled environment.

I am not up in arms about any of this but I do recognize that this and a couple of other things over the last year have made me less enthusiastic about investing my time and thoughts here. The good thing is that, inevitably, as MR becomes more controlled, the pressure for a new, more democratic discussion site grows and, as ever, the market will provide it. This happens with forums all the time and is nothing to get upset or uncivil about.

arn

Oct 13, 2007, 06:50 PM

My assessment is that what readers are primarily finding disturbing is MacRumors' quasi-nondisclosure policy on this issue. ..... This lack of transparency -- which is completely his right -- nevertheless makes readers feel suspicious about some vague capitalistic intent (again, his right).

I think I've been quite forthcoming about the intent of this content. People just like to read into things.

Ambrosia gave us an exclusive preview on an unreleased product. Exclusivity in exchange for a story. There isn't much else to say about it. To spell it out for those who don't understand it: Exclusive content has value to this site.

Obviously, if Adobe gave as an exclusive preview of the next Photoshop, we'd run with. If an unknown developer gave us a preview of simple utility, we would not run with it. WireTap Studio falls somewhere in between.

Clearly interest is driven by the size/penetration of the particular company and application. But [fill in big company name] is not going to be knocking at our door if we don't cover this sort of content with any regularity - hence the experimental nature of it all.

You may see it as "moving of critical posts" but it is not. It is moving of off topic posts. It makes no sense to bog down a news thread with site policy when the thread is not about it. You may have noticed it or taken it more personally because you feel like there's mean-intentions behind it, but the news threads have always been moderated with this sort of strict on-topic-ness.

arn

Donnacha

Oct 13, 2007, 07:04 PM

People just like to read into things.

Well ... yeah ... it is a rumors website :)

TheSlush

Oct 13, 2007, 11:35 PM

To spell it out for those who don't understand it: Exclusive content has value to this site.

And I suppose selling DVD players would have value to Nike.com. But they don't do that. That's not their brand.

To be a bit more apples to apples (no pun intended): Newspapers also gain value by offering exclusive content. But its exclusive news stories, not exclusive product promotions.

Isn't the conflict of interest obvious?

arn

Oct 14, 2007, 12:13 AM

Newspapers also gain value by offering exclusive content. But its exclusive news stories, not exclusive product promotions.

Isn't the conflict of interest obvious?

(to be clear, I'm referring to original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/13/exclusive-preview-ambrosia-softwares-wiretap-studio/) posted 4 weeks ago, the announcement story was just a followup "here it is")

A better comparison would be:

Exclusive preview of Mac OS X 10.6
Exclusive preview of Photoshop CS4
Walt Mossberg early review of the iPhone

You could argue all of these are "product promotions" and a conflict of interest.... but the only difference is the amount of interest you personally have in the products. (If you were podcaster or an audio engineer you would have had great interest in this product, for example)

Like I said, you can argue the level of interest for this particular product but you can't argue the potential validity of such an approach especially for a rumor site (pre-release information).

Sure, I'd rather have posted an exclusive preview to Office 2009, but if wishes were horses... :)

arn

TheSlush

Oct 14, 2007, 01:16 AM

Like I said, you can argue the level of interest for this particular product but you can't argue the potential validity of such an approach especially for a rumor site (pre-release information).

Fair enough. But for what it's worth, I still offer that the front-page placement of such content -- exclusive or not -- is ill-advised. How valuable is exclusive content if it dilutes the status of your most premium real estate?

(Apologies to podcasters and audio engineers.)

arn

Oct 14, 2007, 01:23 AM

If it appeases anyone to know, this type content was never meant to be a recurring theme on the front page. The original thought was to create a MacApps sub-blog similar to the iPhone sub-blog to cover interesting Mac software releases and to retain the relative purity of the front page.

However, I never had the time to implement that system prior to this opportunity becoming available. A number of issues remain including finding someone to provide content for that sub-site, as I am already spread too thin myself.

The reasoning behind such an expansion was to harness the site's discussion forums for other stories/topics. I find that the best part of MacRumors is the discussion that is generated after a news story hits.

I had hoped that an active discussion thread following a software release would be more informative/helpful than just reading the press release. I may have been wrong about that based on the discussion in the Wiretap and Acorn threads, but I didn't want to skew the results too much by detailing my reasons behind it (hence my tight-lippedness as to the "experiment"). As a result, this expansion may or may not come to pass.

For the purists, you shouldn't worry. The front page content will essentially remain the same regardless.

arn

TheSlush

Oct 14, 2007, 01:39 AM

This purist is appeased. I appreciate your illumination on this.

rockosmodurnlif

Oct 14, 2007, 12:29 PM

Actually, the sub-blog sounds like a great idea. There was some informative discussion concerning Wiretap Studio in the release post. For instance a number of similiar apps popped up, price compared with these other apps was discussed, serial registration and DRM I believe were also discussed.

It would make sense and be useful, developers could even look through their own app thread on the macrumors forum and receive recommendations or perhaps constructive criticism.

I for one like the idea.