Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Feedback on 'Ambrosia Releases Wiretap Studio 1.0' News Story

redAPPLE said:
this might seem off topic, but you want to talk about cheapening? it started once we had this forum.
Click to expand...

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.

redAPPLE said:
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 ;))
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
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. :) )
 
dAlen said:
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
Click to expand...

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 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:
dAlen said:
Well, for those who dont care, suppose there is no obligation to read the advertisement.
Click to expand...
- note: emphasis added, word replaced by me.
 
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.
 
arn said:
As has been said before. this is not paid advertising.

arn
Click to expand...

I thought "where" so I did a search and here it is: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/354704/

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

arn said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
lawcomic said:
How dare a private forum showcase a product produced by a sponsor!
Click to expand...

Although I don't think Ambrosia software is a sponsor.
 
tobefirst said:
I don't recall this much backlash when this article was posted. Why was everyone not up in arms then?
Click to expand...

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.
 
tobefirst said:
I don't recall this much backlash when this article was posted. Why was everyone not up in arms then?
Click to expand...

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.
 
tobefirst said:
I don't recall this much backlash when this article was posted. Why was everyone not up in arms then?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheSlush said:
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.
Click to expand...

very well put. I couldn't agree more.
 
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
 
Arn, why does the previous article need a followup?
arn said:
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
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
PR issue?

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.)
 
TheSlush said:
(The moving and reorganizing of critical posts, while perhaps technically proper, does not help the PR factor.)
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheSlush said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

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

Isn't the conflict of interest obvious?
Click to expand...

(to be clear, I'm referring to original preview 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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back