From: Doug P (dougp_at_ispinn.com)
Date: Wed Nov 03 2004 - 11:27:56 PST
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/magazine/31CONSUMED.html
I love the visibility. OTOH, I wish the second paragraph had featured the 130, the 2000, and the 2100 instead of providing column space to note only the premature abilities of the original model (the notorious flop!).
Featuring the 130, 2000, and 2100 would have given the Newton positive exposure, while featuring the original model gave the exposure a negative spin. Because the article noted the original model, guilt-by-association might make anyone think that all Newton models are poor performers, unless instead the strengths and fixes made in the later models were explained.
Someone reading the story could easily think that we're out there supporting only the original Newton--not the stellar, workhorse models (for their time) that replaced it.
Maybe they'll print a correction. ;-)
Doug Parker
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 03 2004 - 13:00:01 PST