Macaolope[1]'s going to have a nice week! First Gizmodo's review (saying ML is absolute garbage), now this:
> [..] Let’s review the first paragraph of Anderson’s post:
>>> Apple today proudly announces that if you buy their Mountain Lion OS, it will connect you to many unprotected sites, beyond your control, without your even knowing that you are so connected.
> This simply isn’t true. [..]
BTW, the Time article actually is a rebuttal of the sillt article by Mr. Anderson. The title is a little misleading (though I'm sure it wasn't intended and was merely a side effect of 80-character title limit).
Calling anything mandatory about computers in this day and age is laughable at best. Social networking is baked into the operating system for a reason. It's there, you don't have to use it, but you can if you'd like. It's there because we are living in an increasing social-network oriented world. People want to be able to fire off updates to their followers while they are doing something else. It's no big deal really. It's not like your twitter or facebook streams are baked into the operating system. Turning off the integration is as simple as a trip to the system preferences pane. The user group that Apple is designing for isn't the American mobile teen. It's the social media consumer/user. Do you know what's awesome about features that are included in operating systems? They can be turned off while you're at work and then turned on when you're at home.
> Turning off the integration is as simple as a trip to the system preferences pane.
Actually, Turning them on is as easy as sliding a switch! They're off by default. Which makes his argument even weaker.
I don't have a twitter, Facebook, ... account and I'm probably angrier than most about Social integrations in iOS 6 and ML, so I'm not defending Apple. But these "features" are opt-in.
That's true but turning them off if they're on is still a switch away.
Why are you angry about the integration in Mountain Lion and iOS 6 if you don't have the accounts? Do you think that they should have focused on something else?
Right now the average level of comments ("reviews"!) on the App Store is just a tiny bit better than YouTube comments. It's rare than you can "really" find a useful review. Now an army of Facebookers/Twitters is able to comment too. These guys have their own subset of English language that I don't quite understand (or rather try hard not to understand), and usually try to fit their message in 140 characters or less. Guess it won't help the App Store(s)'s comment much...
> surferchick12: LMAO! the mom is like WTF!!!!!!!!111
> xXxPokemonxXx: awww look at the baby panda ROFL ;) hahaha LOL
But none of those comments are going to the app store, all of them are going to twitter or facebook. None of the social integrations should affect anyone that isn't using the services already.
I think they'll be showing these comments both in person's wall in the Facebook and on the app's page in the App Store.
And also keep in mind that YouTube commenters don't talk like that all the time. It's just YouTube bringing the worst out of them! The same is true for Facebookers (although FB is much better than YT); people's "tone" will change when they know they're writing this "review" for their friend on Facebook (or at least, they know their friends will see them attached to their username). Some people might actually write better reviews (less anonymity), but I think most will write worse reviews.
> [..] Let’s review the first paragraph of Anderson’s post:
>>> Apple today proudly announces that if you buy their Mountain Lion OS, it will connect you to many unprotected sites, beyond your control, without your even knowing that you are so connected.
> This simply isn’t true. [..]
BTW, the Time article actually is a rebuttal of the sillt article by Mr. Anderson. The title is a little misleading (though I'm sure it wasn't intended and was merely a side effect of 80-character title limit).
[1]: http://macalope.com/