Apple blogger calls "bullshit" on me

Robert, Touché (to quote an Apple ad). But it’s not as though there aren’t any feedback mechanisms in place between Apple and customers. You mentioned a few. I’ll bet there are others at work as well.

It’s all a matter of calibration. Depending on what communication problems need to be solved, there are different ways to set the dials. Why does it always have to be set to max blogging?

John C. Welch wrote:

“[Scoble has] yet to establish an actual need for [Apple] blogging”

I took a shot at it a few weeks ago:

http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/10/12/5604

Well, this comment thread shows exactly why blogs are basically worthless. There is no communication here just bickering and nitpicking.

I do find it funny that the pro-bloggers use many of the same tactics as socialists. Maybe if the USSR had a blog we could learn about that route…

Hello,
Up until 9/12, I managed the writers and editors on Apple.com. I resigned to encourage people to vote. (Read the whole story at http://www.yourethedecider.com/About.html). Now, I could never have written this site with these opinions as an Apple employee, or rather, I wouldn’t have.

I had a more regular personal blog up until the 2004 election. Even some Microsoft employees found it and commented on it, as I managed the writing about Mac OS X on the Web since its inception. (I think their comments were something along the lines of, why can’t our marketing be as clear as theirs.)

To be perfectly honest, I think the reason more people at Apple don’t blog is that they’re way too busy working to blog. Plenty of my former co-workers have personal blogs. But, you can see periods where they don’t post for days. It’s because they have a project that is all-consuming. Blogs without postings don’t get regular readership.

There are also plenty of other communications vehicles, as pointed out, where Apple talks, or has customer forums. Apple eNews, Apple Hot News, Discussion forums, iTunes reviews, Apple Store reviews, mailing lists. Also, the feedback links on product pages do get read by the appropriate people. And responded to. But if the appropriate person responded publicly to every single message, the appropriate person wouldn’t be able to actually fix anything, they’d be communicating all day. That’s not really meaning to be an excuse, just reality of how much attention there is.

And finally, there is also a culture of a) underpromising and overdelivering and b) surprising and delighting. Would you really want Steven King to have a blog about all the twists and turns while he writes the latest novel? Wouldn’t the story work less well if you knew how the scary part worked from the start? Ok, maybe that’s a bad analogy for support problems, but it works for new products.
Best,
KT

@98. Good God, Scoble. You really are incapable of having a rational discussion about the value of blogging at the corporate level it seems. Are you really unwilling to see that there may be a possibility that blogging is not always an effective tool…even if done well? You repsonse in @98 has you coming off as a baby because there are people that have the audacity to question your position.

More and more you are looking like a “Blogo-facist”

“[Scoble has] yet to establish an actual need for [Apple] blogging”

I took a shot at it a few weeks ago:

Yeah John, and honestly, it’s not your best work. Your reasons were rather um…weak:

Let’s look at just one example from recent Apple history. In May of 2006, Apple’s newly released MacBook Pro laptops appeared to be running a bit hot. It didn’t take long for intrepid hardware hackers to crack open the case and discover an excessive amount of thermal paste on the various hot bits. Further inquiry revealed that Apple’s service manual for the MacBook Pro contained instructions to apply comical amounts of thermal paste when repairing said hot bits.

That whole story sounded real good. “OMG, APPLE’S TEH DUMB”. Until a couple of sites decided to actually measure the temp difference between a macbook with Apple’s “comical” amounts of thermal paste and what every said was the “proper” amount.

Empirical testing showed that the actual, real-world temp difference was negligible.

There’s nothing a blog would have done for that, because it was YAE of the Mac community losing its damned mind over an impression without bothering to look for real data. You can’t out-blog dumb, and that’s what that was. Dumb at the speed of light.

You go on for paragraphs about how a blogger with Steve’s ear could have helped Apple avoid this problem, but there was no real problem other than aesthetic. There’s no way a blog from Apple is going to outweigh the self-appoointed geniuses saying that anyone knows that much thermal paste is the cause of the problems. Every yayhoo that ever put a PC together is going to say that Apple was full of shit, they’ll drown Apple out and we both know it.

How has blogging helped Microsoft overcome its security problems?

It hasn’t. Hard work is the only thing that will do that.

How has blogging helped Sun over come its relevancy issues?

It hasn’t. Product has done all the work there.

Blogging has not solved a single technical problem *ever*, and the idea that it will, or mitigate the effects of an actual problem, or, as in the case of your example, mitigate the effects of hysteria over a non-problem is silly.

Look,it’s okay if the pro bloggers say “We like blogging and think blogging is cool, but we have no data, quantitative or otherwise, that indicates if blogging has a positive or negative bottomline impact on a corporation” I mean at least we would know you are basing your opinion on……nothing but your feelings.

>> That whole story sounded real good. “OMG, APPLE’S TEH DUMB”. Until a couple of sites decided to actually measure the temp difference between a macbook with Apple’s “comical” amounts of thermal paste and what every said was the “proper” amount.

Empirical testing showed that the actual, real-world temp difference was negligible. > You can’t out-blog dumb, and that’s what that was. Dumb at the speed of light. > There’s no way a blog from Apple is going to outweigh the self-appoointed geniuses saying that anyone knows that much thermal paste is the cause of the problems. Every yayhoo that ever put a PC together is going to say that Apple was full of shit, they’ll drown Apple out and we both know it. > How has blogging helped Microsoft overcome its security problems?

(Ug, no comment editing? Some blog software…anyway, attempt number two…)

That whole story sounded real good. “OMG, APPLE’S TEH DUMB”. Until a couple of sites decided to actually measure the temp difference between a macbook with Apple’s “comical” amounts of thermal paste and what every said was the “proper” amount.

Empirical testing showed that the actual, real-world temp difference was negligible.

Two points. First, it doesn’t matter if there was any difference in measured temperature on a particular persons MacBook. (Some showed a difference; some did not.) You simply don’t put that much paste on because it’s just supposed to fill the tiny voids in the (microscopically) rough surfaces of that mating pieces.

That being the case, all that excess paste has to go somewhere. Some thermal paste is mildly conductive, so you definitely don’t want it oozing onto the motherboard or other components. At least one user had the excess paste leak onto his DIMMs. (Google for the picts.)

Second, more importantly, it doesn’t matter if the grease application was actually harmful. What matters is how it was *perceived.* Remember, this is PR.

An official Apple blogging presence could have addressed both issues, by explaining how it’s not harmful to have that much grease (“Apple only uses totally non-conductive grease”) and/or by indicating how it happened, what Apple is doing to fix it, and when the problem is expected to be solved.

Instead, there was silence and antagonism (the C&D for the service manual picts). That made things much, much worse.

You can’t out-blog dumb, and that’s what that was. Dumb at the speed of light.

“Dumb” is precisely what a timely, engaged Apple blog is best suited to combat. Left to their own devices, with no guidance from Apple in a reasonable time frame, the Mac web has only its reader reports and speculation to go on.

There’s no way a blog from Apple is going to outweigh the self-appoointed geniuses saying that anyone knows that much thermal paste is the cause of the problems. Every yayhoo that ever put a PC together is going to say that Apple was full of shit, they’ll drown Apple out and we both know it.

Maybe it seems that way to you because the conversation is so one-sided now. If an Apple blogger had immediate addressed the issue, every subsequent site, blog, or forum post the mentioned the issue would have had a summary of, and link to the Apple blogger’s response included in the thread. Apple fans would rally around this, you can be sure, pointing out the statements in any anti-Apple posting that were refuted by the Apple blogger’s response.

How has blogging helped Microsoft overcome its security problems?

Who says that was the goal of their blogging efforts? Only MS knows what the real goals were, if they were even defined. All I can tell you is the effect the blogs have had. I think they’ve improved MS’s image and the knowledge and perception of its technologies. That’s nothing to sneeze at, considering the starting point.

LayZ: >>Look,it’s okay if the pro bloggers say “We like blogging and think blogging is cool, but we have no data, quantitative or otherwise, that indicates if blogging has a positive or negative bottomline impact on a corporation”

We interviewed 188 companies for our book, which contains lots of data, quantitative or otherwise, that indicates that blogging has a positive bottomline impact. Start with the CEO of Stormhoek. He says he doubled his sales with a blog and blog strategy.

But, nah, let’s ignore THAT data. It’s so much more fun to beat up on blog advocates.

It’s a little difficult to extrapolate a small boutique winery in South Africa to a 60+ billion dollar American tech company that has existed for 30 years though… And by the way, the Stormhoek blog hasn’t had a post since February: has their business declined 50% over the last 8 months?

I apologize: the blog hasn’t been dead since Feb. I was on an old archived page and was unable to reach the new pages for some reason. However, I did learn that the vineyard was established by a “braintrust” of vintners in 2001… had there first variety in 2003… expanded to 4 varieties in 2004… and have continued to expand and aggressively promote in 2005. No surprise to see a vineyards production/sales double in its 5th year if they are going to have any success. Also I wouldn’t call sending free wine to hundreds of people, providing free wine for tons of events, and hosting their own free wine tasting events solely a blog strategy even if the bloggers and geek events were the target. He could have picked “athletes” or any category of person and had similar results.

The more I look at it: Stormhoek seems to be the biggest blog scam story of the last year and a half.

They’ve expanded distribution through major UK chains and Cost Plus here in the states, have hugely expanded their production (could they have even produced more than 50,000 cases in ’05?), participated in all of the traditional wine testing/vending/scoring events you’d imagine any vineyard would be involved, got mentions in winetasting magazines, all during the time when a vienyard would naturally ramp up output… and it’s all attributable to a blog? Nope, sorry, don’t buy it.

And also, let’s remember: the first 5 years is nothing for a vineyard. Let’s see how their blog does for their success over the next 5 years.

@114. I’ve conceded that blogging can help small and medium sized companies, which seems to be the majority of your 188 companies you “interviewed”. And that’s likely because they have limited funding/resources show many choose blogging as their primary communication vehicle. And excuse me for not accepting a data set of 188 carefully selected companies. Did you explore companies that invested in blogging and found it wasn’t effective? Thank you but I’d prefer a survey that wasn’t self serving. Like, or I dunno, maybe a study done by an organization that had no interest in either a positive or negative result.

Look, I admire the fact Shel was able to write a book with such supporting data (and he graciously allowed you to tag along) that “proves” your theory. But, the question still remains unanswered. And you still remain incapable of having an intellectual conversation around a contrary opinion.

Wow..Goebbels is really on the money here..

Interesting thing – Robert hasnt really participated in this conversation but has gone on with 10 newer posts. What with the claim ‘blog is an effective conversation tool’?

It looks its quite easy to kill a conversation by posting newer entries.

May be blogging is great for conversations where you are winning…

@112 “Who says that was the goal of their blogging efforts? Only MS knows what the real goals were, if they were even defined. All I can tell you is the effect the blogs have had. I think they’ve improved MS’s image and the knowledge and perception of its technologies. That’s nothing to sneeze at, considering the starting point.”

Likely not their sole goal. But if MS is encouraging their employees to blog and that blogging doesn’t ULTIMATELY result in better products and more sales, then the company and the bloggers are wasting the company’s time. You may THINK the plethora of blogs MS have has improved their image, but I would think a CEO would want more concrete data than what someone THINKS. Israel’s book as examples of 188 carefully selected companies that supposedly “prove” blogging is a good thing. Is there other quantitative data out there. The most important being data that shows companies that DON’T blog are being hurt by doing so. I don’t think anyone is arguing that blogging has a detrimental impact on a company. It seems Scoble’s contention is that NOT blogging has a detrimental affect on a company. I’d like to see some research that supports that.

Scoble, your 188 companies carefully selected companies “prove” that blogging is good. No one questions that. What I question is the thesis that NOT blogging is bad for a company. Where’s the proof of that?

@112 “Who says that was the goal of their blogging efforts? Only MS knows what the real goals were, if they were even defined. All I can tell you is the effect the blogs have had. I think they’ve improved MS’s image and the knowledge and perception of its technologies. That’s nothing to sneeze at, considering the starting point.”

Likely not their sole goal. But if MS is encouraging their employees to blog and that blogging doesn’t ULTIMATELY result in better products and more sales, then the company and the bloggers are wasting the company’s time. You may THINK the plethora of blogs MS have has improved their image, but I would think a CEO would want more concrete data than what someone THINKS. Israel’s book as examples of 188 carefully selected companies that supposedly “prove” blogging is a good thing. Is there other quantitative data out there. The most important being data that shows companies that DON’T blog are being hurt by doing so. I don’t think anyone is arguing that blogging has a detrimental impact on a company. It seems Scoble’s contention is that NOT blogging has a detrimental affect on a company. I’d like to see some research that supports that.

Scoble, your 188 companies carefully selected companies “prove” that blogging is good. No one questions that. What I question is the thesis that NOT blogging is bad for a company. Where’s the proof of that?

blogger: I saw your post after I responded to LayZ. >>What with the claim ‘blog is an effective conversation tool’?

I see this conversation going in circles. Shoot me for wanting to spend my time doing something more interesting than trying to hold a “conversation” with a handful of people, most of whom are anonymous and seem to have already made up their minds anyway.

I don’t argue about my views on abortion for the same reason. Even if my position is right all you do is piss people off.

blogger: I saw your post after I responded to LayZ. >>What with the claim ‘blog is an effective conversation tool’?

I see this conversation going in circles. Shoot me for wanting to spend my time doing something more interesting than trying to hold a “conversation” with a handful of people, most of whom are anonymous and seem to have already made up their minds anyway.

I don’t argue about my views on abortion for the same reason. Even if my position is right all you do is piss people off.

LayZ: Microsoft has plenty of internal data showing that blogging helps it get more recruits (I’ve seen the surveys and work the company has done to try to quantify a difference), get a better reputation, and probably more sales although that one is a harder one to prove. But profits have risen every quarter at Microsoft since I joined. So, they aren’t having a detrimental effect.

I can’t talk about the survey results cause I signed an NDA, though, and can’t talk about things that haven’t been disclosed publicly.

I can say that there are millions of visitors to things like Channel 9 and blogs.msdn.com and blogs.technet.com.

I also can say that you’re absolutely right. If blogging wasn’t serving a larger corporate goal it would have been killed long ago.

LayZ: >>What I don’t agree with, because I don’t see evidence of this, is the NOT blogging hurts.

I’ve seen anecdotal evidence that it does hurt. Especially on recruitment. But I can’t share the data, unfortunately, so I can’t use what I’ve seen to win the argument.

Whats wrong with being anonymous? If anything it helps. You can concentrate on the issue being raised rather than the person who raises the issue.

Why should my biases matter? Besides we dont need to have conversations to “convince” each other. It could simply help understand each others view point and diversify.

You may not beleive, but i too strongly beleived not blogging does hurt organizations. But the questions raised here have been quite interesting and thought provoking.

“Dumb” is precisely what a timely, engaged Apple blog is best suited to combat. Left to their own devices, with no guidance from Apple in a reasonable time frame, the Mac web has only its reader reports and speculation to go on.

John, if you really think that, then you should pay more attention to the Mac community you write for. Or the computer community in general. Or, in fact, the masses as a whole. There have been, literally, since 1960, around ten verifiable cases of halloween candy tampering. There has been, IIRC, one verifiable death, a father in texas killing his kids for insurance money.

This is well – documented. It’s on blogs even. Guess what difference it’s made in the Tampered Halloween Candy hysteria? None. Not a damned bit. Same thing with the Black Cats being killed by Satanists hysteria, etc.

All of the correct information is available on blogs. Easily searched and found. Yet, oddly, it makes no difference. Why? Because once someone makes up their mind, what makes you think that minor things like “facts” and “reality” are going to change it?

Again, you can suppose all you like about how an Apple blog would have made a difference here, but the numbers saying “no, it won’t actually” far outweigh that idea.

Maybe it seems that way to you because the conversation is so one-sided now. If an Apple blogger had immediate addressed the issue, every subsequent site, blog, or forum post the mentioned the issue would have had a summary of, and link to the Apple blogger’s response included in the thread. Apple fans would rally around this, you can be sure, pointing out the statements in any anti-Apple posting that were refuted by the Apple blogger’s response.

Do you actually read some of the examples of what passes for rational thought in the vast majority of the Mac Web, or do you assume that because you try to bring logic and rational analysis to such things that everyone else does too? I’m thinking it’s the latter if you really believe that statement.

I think they’ve improved MS’s image and the knowledge and perception of its technologies. That’s nothing to sneeze at, considering the starting point.

not in the IT biz. No one there trusts anything Microsoft says until its buyable. WinFS anyone?

We interviewed 188 companies for our book, which contains lots of data, quantitative or otherwise, that indicates that blogging has a positive bottomline impact. Start with the CEO of Stormhoek. He says he doubled his sales with a blog and blog strategy.

But, nah, let’s ignore THAT data. It’s so much more fun to beat up on blog advocates.

Robert, you love that example, yet where’s the actual, testable, non-spun data that conclusively shows that blogging, and blogging ALONE doubled their sales? If blogging had that kind of effect on people, shouldn’t both Microsoft’s and Sun’s stock performance be looking more like Apple’s?

Interesting thing – Robert hasnt really participated in this conversation but has gone on with 10 newer posts. What with the claim ‘blog is an effective conversation tool’?

It looks its quite easy to kill a conversation by posting newer entries.

Actually, it’s the best way. Shove it to the bottom of the list, or off the main page, and you kill the conversation rather effectively.

Is blogging a “faith?” I have more evidence than that, but it still isn’t something I can back up with hard and fast numbers for the most part.

Wait…you’re saying it’s not a faith, but you have no real data to show it, so we’ll just have to take your word on it?

Robert…that…that statement of yours…that is the very essence of faith. “I have no real proof, but I know I’m right”. You destroy your point in the same sentence you try to make it in. That’s quite efficient, but rather a waste of time?

Why are you arguing in the first place? We don’t know cause you’re an anonymous blogger who doesn’t want us to know his or her biases, background, career, bosses, families, or anything else.

When all else fails, and Robert’s backed into a corner again, come out against anonymity. sigh…so sad.

I see this conversation going in circles. Shoot me for wanting to spend my time doing something more interesting than trying to hold a “conversation” with a handful of people, most of whom are anonymous and seem to have already made up their minds anyway.

I don’t argue about my views on abortion for the same reason. Even if my position is right all you do is piss people off.

The next great Scoblism. When in doubt, pout. Robert, maybe if you spent half as much time providing real supporting data as doing a princess two-step, you’d have better luck.

I can’t talk about the survey results cause I signed an NDA, though, and can’t talk about things that haven’t been disclosed publicly.

“I have seen the true word, but you can’t. You must trust what I say because I have seen the true word.”

You sure you aren’t training to be a televangelist?

I can say that there are millions of visitors to things like Channel 9 and blogs.msdn.com and blogs.technet.com.

There’s millions of visitors to vivid.com every day too, what’s your point?

I also can say that you’re absolutely right. If blogging wasn’t serving a larger corporate goal it would have been killed long ago.

Indeed. Without the rather large PR boost that blogs have giving Microsoft, the Vista debacle would have hurt them FAR more.

I’ve seen anecdotal evidence that it does hurt. Especially on recruitment. But I can’t share the data, unfortunately, so I can’t use what I’ve seen to win the argument.

Curious how the only data you can find to support your point is sooper-seekret. If blogging is as consistently beneficial as you maintain, surely there are more public data you can use.

Goebbels you are an anti-blogging Nazi

“Goebbels you are an anti-blogging Nazi”

And that’s bad because ???