Hilariously stupid WSJ article on new MacBook Pro retina

[Kadarin]

Article here: http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2012/06/11/cios-beware-new-macbook-pro-will-be-a-bandwidth-hog/

The author of the article is a complete fucking idiot, and the comments after the article call him out on it, to great effect.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that the higher resolution Retina displays of the new iPad and forthcoming Macbook Pro computers would increase consumption of network bandwidth, thus slowing performance of corporate networks. Higher resolution screens do not in and of themselves consume more network bandwidth. Some analysts have suggested that owners of devices with high-resolution screens will likely consume more video and HD video, which would result in higher bandwidth consumption. This article has been substantially recast to reflect this change.

Well that's resolved now

 

[waggy]

lol poor guy. the comments were harsh.

 

[gevorg]

the only thing WSJ needs to know is how to please their cronies

ASCII facepalm in comments was epic

 

[Fritzo]

Clint Boulton:
Ass Reporter

 

[shortylickens]

Nerds with nothing better to do than hate and bash.

 

[goog40]

Websites can be designed to display higher-dpi versions of images for devices that can take advantage of it (such as the new iPad). In reality, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference in bandwidth consumption in most cases. But loading the same web page could use up more bandwidth on different devices.

 

[Pulsar]

Actually it's not resolved. Now his article reads like a 4 year old wrote it, and still tries to point the finger at the display as driving bandwidth.

Can someone here please define a paragraph, and then explain how this fits the definition?

"CIOs with loose bring-your-own-device policies might find their corporate networks clogged should employees bring the just-announced Macbook Pro computers to work. Introduced at Apple’s developer conference Monday, the new Macbook Pro is fitted with a Retina display, whose resolution of 2880-by-1800 pixels packed into a 15.4-inch screen is the crispest screen for a computer yet, clearer than Apple’s newest iPad."

Two sentences. One a run-on with two many commas. Neither sentences relate to eachother.

BASIC FUCKING WRITING SKILLS.

The WSJ doesn't have them.

 

[Miramonti]

I would have expected more from the WSJ.

 

[pelov]

Is the screen more responsive? brighter brights? darker darks? g2g time?

I'm all for more pixels but when you more than double what constitutes as a 'retina display' you're probably just burning money senselessly at that point. I'm pretty sure the visually acute aren't buying Appletops anyway as they're all wearing black brimmed glasses.

Also WSJ should find someone who's not clueless and fire that douche

 

[Dominato3r]

I thought Mossberg and rest of the crew over at WSJ/ATD were shills that knew everything and anything Apple :hmm:

 

[uclaLabrat]

I read the updated version...not sure how much changed, but it made perfect sense to me. I didn't think it necessarily implied he thinks the bandwidth will be due to the screen, but that people will utilize more HD than they normally would because the differences will be more apparent...but I guess that in itself is a fairly weak premise.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Apple fan boys are mad

 

[SP33Demon]

But "literally", he said... /slaps

 

[Meghan54]

Actually it's not resolved. Now his article reads like a 4 year old wrote it, and still tries to point the finger at the display as driving bandwidth.

Can someone here please define a paragraph, and then explain how this fits the definition?

"CIOs with loose bring-your-own-device policies might find their corporate networks clogged should employees bring the just-announced Macbook Pro computers to work. Introduced at Apple’s developer conference Monday, the new Macbook Pro is fitted with a Retina display, whose resolution of 2880-by-1800 pixels packed into a 15.4-inch screen is the crispest screen for a computer yet, clearer than Apple’s newest iPad."

Two sentences. One a run-on with two many commas. Neither sentences relate to eachother.

BASIC FUCKING WRITING SKILLS.

The WSJ doesn't have them.

I don't know what the heck you're reading, but I see no run-on sentences at all.

Perhaps you're referring to the second sentence? You have a descriptive, dependent clause opening the sentence, completely related to the screen as describing when the screen was released, making it relevant. It's a typical writing style......sort of like writing "Founded in 1776, the United States....yead, yada...."

Get it?


Then the main body of the sentence: " the new Macbook Pro is fitted with a Retina display, whose resolution of 2880-by-1800 pixels packed into a 15.4-inch screen is the crispest screen for a computer yet..." seems to be able to stand alone quite well.....and is in fact a complete sentence. No problem yet, right?

And then the author added the last part, "clearer than Apple’s newest iPad." at the end of the sentence, to contrast the new vs. the old screen and their "clearness" or whatever.

Again, no problem as that clause is again related to the main subject, the screen.

So, all three parts are directly related to the screen, two dependent clauses and an independent clause. No run-on sentences found. And the first sentence is a sentence, too.


So, I guess you want first grade writing styles instead?

Something like this?


Apple's new Retina display was introduced at Apple’s developer conference Monday. The new Macbook Pro is fitted with the Retina display. It has a resolution of 2880-by-1800 pixels packed into a 15.4-inch screen. The Retinal display is the crispest screen for a computer yet and clearer than the display found in Apple’s newest iPad.



That better? Much simpler, much easier writing and would be directed towards the LCD of readers, something the WSJ tries to climb above.

 

[blackdogdeek]

that's awesome. all-around awesome.

 

[thereds]

I don't know what the heck you're reading, but I see no run-on sentences at all.

Perhaps you're referring to the second sentence? You have a descriptive, dependent clause opening the sentence, completely related to the screen as describing when the screen was released, making it relevant. It's a typical writing style......sort of like writing "Founded in 1776, the United States....yead, yada...."

Get it?


Then the main body of the sentence: " the new Macbook Pro is fitted with a Retina display, whose resolution of 2880-by-1800 pixels packed into a 15.4-inch screen is the crispest screen for a computer yet..." seems to be able to stand alone quite well.....and is in fact a complete sentence. No problem yet, right?

And then the author added the last part, "clearer than Apple’s newest iPad." at the end of the sentence, to contrast the new vs. the old screen and their "clearness" or whatever.

Again, no problem as that clause is again related to the main subject, the screen.

So, all three parts are directly related to the screen, two dependent clauses and an independent clause. No run-on sentences found. And the first sentence is a sentence, too.


So, I guess you want first grade writing styles instead?

Something like this?


Apple's new Retina display was introduced at Apple’s developer conference Monday. The new Macbook Pro is fitted with the Retina display. It has a resolution of 2880-by-1800 pixels packed into a 15.4-inch screen. The Retinal display is the crispest screen for a computer yet and clearer than the display found in Apple’s newest iPad.



That better? Much simpler, much easier writing and would be directed towards the LCD of readers, something the WSJ tries to climb above.

Owned.

 

[Anonemous]

Guy just getting paid by driving clicks to his story.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Two sentences. One a run-on with two many commas.

I think you meant to say: "Two sentences, one a run-on with too many commas".

Neither sentences relate to eachother.

I think you meant to say: "Neither sentence is related to the other" or "The two sentences are unrelated".

 

[Lifted]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

 

[pelov]

 

[Thegonagle]

ASCII facepalm in comments was epic

I'm so "borrowing" that ASCII.

(To save everybody time, click "View All Comments" and scroll way, way down. It's from today at 5:01 PM--must be eastern time.)

 

[Destiny]

I would say 90% of the time I would read the title of the article, then read the premise, the I head straight for the comments... Most of the time I just read the comments for LOL!

This guy is like the Chris Chase for Finance Articles!

After awhile reading finance and tech articles... most of these journalists don't really know what they are writing... if they were "experts" they would be Editors and not just writers...

 

[Kadarin]

Guy just getting paid by driving clicks to his story.

At the expense of WSJ's credibility, sure.

 

[TechBoyJK]

It seems the point he was trying to make is that with such high resolution, users will be demanding higher definition content, therefore further stressing available bandwidth.

It may have been poorly written, but I got the point he was trying to make.