<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Columbo Technique</title>
	<atom:link href="http://powazek.com/posts/644/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644</link>
	<description>It&#039;s pronounced poe-WAH-zek.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:26:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shawn Levasseur</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1170</link>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Levasseur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1170</guid>
		<description>The &quot;Columbo&quot; method of questioning may be vaild. But it&#039;s more for a one on one setting, not a press conferernce setting where the reporter is just as &quot;on stage&quot; as the subject is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;Columbo&#8221; method of questioning may be vaild. But it&#8217;s more for a one on one setting, not a press conferernce setting where the reporter is just as &#8220;on stage&#8221; as the subject is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leif Ree-Pedersen</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1168</link>
		<dc:creator>Leif Ree-Pedersen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1168</guid>
		<description>As it turns out, Keefe&#039;s question was probably very useful. Because the underlying issue here is: Why is the rest of the computer world putting up with those hideous stickers? Mr. Jobs of course could not answer that one, but it&#039;s now sort of in the air. The most mind-boggling thing, when you think about it, is that lots of PC users (most of the people I know anyway) just leaves the crap hanging there, as if it was part of the PC&#039;s design (there generally isn&#039;t any anyway), or as if it was a criminal offence to simply peel it off. Why? Why?

Why are PCs so ugly? Is it because nobody but Apple have got good designers? Sure, Mr. Ives is brilliant, but even a half decent designer would make a difference. One PC user once told me that the looks of a computer was totally irrelevant, what mattered is how it works. Sure. But would he by his next new car by the same guidelines? Personally I think that more often than not quality outside speaks of quality inside. Or the other way around: If nobody have cared about how an expensive high tech product looks, why would I believe that the function has been given all that much thought?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As it turns out, Keefe&#8217;s question was probably very useful. Because the underlying issue here is: Why is the rest of the computer world putting up with those hideous stickers? Mr. Jobs of course could not answer that one, but it&#8217;s now sort of in the air. The most mind-boggling thing, when you think about it, is that lots of PC users (most of the people I know anyway) just leaves the crap hanging there, as if it was part of the PC&#8217;s design (there generally isn&#8217;t any anyway), or as if it was a criminal offence to simply peel it off. Why? Why?</p>
<p>Why are PCs so ugly? Is it because nobody but Apple have got good designers? Sure, Mr. Ives is brilliant, but even a half decent designer would make a difference. One PC user once told me that the looks of a computer was totally irrelevant, what mattered is how it works. Sure. But would he by his next new car by the same guidelines? Personally I think that more often than not quality outside speaks of quality inside. Or the other way around: If nobody have cared about how an expensive high tech product looks, why would I believe that the function has been given all that much thought?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Gaskell</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1165</link>
		<dc:creator>John Gaskell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1165</guid>
		<description>I still think Bob Keefe was a plant by Apple PR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still think Bob Keefe was a plant by Apple PR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tman</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1164</link>
		<dc:creator>tman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:48:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1164</guid>
		<description>Nice commentary Derek. But your question, &quot;Why does Apple get a pass when every other PC manufacturer has those awful logos all over their products?&quot; is poorly framed. It&#039;s not a case of Apple &quot;getting a pass,&quot; because joining the Intel Inside program is a marketing choice, and if Apple chooses not to be involved why is there any question? Other manufacturers could do just the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice commentary Derek. But your question, &#8220;Why does Apple get a pass when every other PC manufacturer has those awful logos all over their products?&#8221; is poorly framed. It&#8217;s not a case of Apple &#8220;getting a pass,&#8221; because joining the Intel Inside program is a marketing choice, and if Apple chooses not to be involved why is there any question? Other manufacturers could do just the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1156</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1156</guid>
		<description>Derek,
I agree that it was a dumb question, but in order to get a &quot;smart&quot; answer, it needs to illicit a previously unheard response. It didn&#039;t. All it got was a regurgitation of the same response Apple gave last year, as anyone who has followed the transition from PPC to Intel processors knows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Derek,<br />
I agree that it was a dumb question, but in order to get a &#8220;smart&#8221; answer, it needs to illicit a previously unheard response. It didn&#8217;t. All it got was a regurgitation of the same response Apple gave last year, as anyone who has followed the transition from PPC to Intel processors knows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Hambleton</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1155</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Hambleton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:27:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1155</guid>
		<description>I bought a lovely shiny metal digital camera today. It had a garish sticker telling me that it had 8mp capability, anti shake and 3x optical zoom. 

Big whoop, I know that because I read the box.

Sticker promptly removed and now it looks nice :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I bought a lovely shiny metal digital camera today. It had a garish sticker telling me that it had 8mp capability, anti shake and 3x optical zoom. </p>
<p>Big whoop, I know that because I read the box.</p>
<p>Sticker promptly removed and now it looks nice :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan c.</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1154</link>
		<dc:creator>dan c.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1154</guid>
		<description>it was a silly question. do people really *deserve* to be ripped or ridiculed?

I also bought Apple stock, at $14, and unfortunately sold it at about half what it is today. my first Mac is on it&#039;s way, and I am giddy about being able to use one every day after copying with XP some time. I&#039;ll try to stay away from being smug, I don&#039;t like the way it feels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it was a silly question. do people really *deserve* to be ripped or ridiculed?</p>
<p>I also bought Apple stock, at $14, and unfortunately sold it at about half what it is today. my first Mac is on it&#8217;s way, and I am giddy about being able to use one every day after copying with XP some time. I&#8217;ll try to stay away from being smug, I don&#8217;t like the way it feels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emma</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1149</link>
		<dc:creator>Emma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:11:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1149</guid>
		<description>This is a classic &quot;zealot&quot; reaction from the portion of the Mac community that&#039;s as thick as two short planks.

It doesn&#039;t matter what Bob Keefe thinks he knows, as a journalist he must attribute &quot;the facts&quot; to someone with knowledge of the matter, which he did. If he goes via the Apple PR dept he gets some PR flacks, bleached, pre-packed answer but this way he got Steve Jobs.

Most Mac bloggers wouldn&#039;t last 10 minutes with a real journalist, they&#039;d be lying down on the concrete, cuddling their Macbook, crying like a baby. Gruber (one of the &#039;high profile&#039; zealots stoking this rubbish) has page views. No credibility, no ethics, no f****** clue!

I&#039;m a long time Mac owner and this crap makes me sad, really really sad. Grow up and get with the real world. Nice post Mr Powazek.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a classic &#8220;zealot&#8221; reaction from the portion of the Mac community that&#8217;s as thick as two short planks.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t matter what Bob Keefe thinks he knows, as a journalist he must attribute &#8220;the facts&#8221; to someone with knowledge of the matter, which he did. If he goes via the Apple PR dept he gets some PR flacks, bleached, pre-packed answer but this way he got Steve Jobs.</p>
<p>Most Mac bloggers wouldn&#8217;t last 10 minutes with a real journalist, they&#8217;d be lying down on the concrete, cuddling their Macbook, crying like a baby. Gruber (one of the &#8216;high profile&#8217; zealots stoking this rubbish) has page views. No credibility, no ethics, no f****** clue!</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a long time Mac owner and this crap makes me sad, really really sad. Grow up and get with the real world. Nice post Mr Powazek.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: addicted</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1148</link>
		<dc:creator>addicted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:09:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1148</guid>
		<description>Thanks for calling Gruber out on this one Derek.  I completely agree with your sentiment that often a stupid question is necessary to elicit a great answer.  And in this case, this is exactly what happened.  Steve Jobs laid out the entire mac philosophy in a quick impromptu speech better than anyone who may have written tomes about Apple, or has been blogging about them for decades.

And all because of 1 &quot;stupid&quot; question!

(P.S. Was there any other question at the Q&amp;A that got a better answer than this one?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for calling Gruber out on this one Derek.  I completely agree with your sentiment that often a stupid question is necessary to elicit a great answer.  And in this case, this is exactly what happened.  Steve Jobs laid out the entire mac philosophy in a quick impromptu speech better than anyone who may have written tomes about Apple, or has been blogging about them for decades.</p>
<p>And all because of 1 &#8220;stupid&#8221; question!</p>
<p>(P.S. Was there any other question at the Q&amp;A that got a better answer than this one?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kenneth</title>
		<link>http://powazek.com/posts/644/comment-page-1#comment-1147</link>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://powazek.com/posts/644#comment-1147</guid>
		<description>Derek, I think you&#039;ve got a huge point. His question was actually a very clever question, if it got Jobs to comment on why Apple doesn&#039;t participate.

One thing I hate is when mac-fanboys get all defensive and shit on everything that doesn&#039;t have a glossy apple on it. I&#039;m a mac user â€“ developer even, but you gotta be realistic. Steve Jobs is not god, and Cupertino is not heaven.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Derek, I think you&#8217;ve got a huge point. His question was actually a very clever question, if it got Jobs to comment on why Apple doesn&#8217;t participate.</p>
<p>One thing I hate is when mac-fanboys get all defensive and shit on everything that doesn&#8217;t have a glossy apple on it. I&#8217;m a mac user â€“ developer even, but you gotta be realistic. Steve Jobs is not god, and Cupertino is not heaven.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

