I am surprised I didn't comment on Net Applications. About two months ago at the start of August, Net Applications announced that its previously reported usage share numbers were erroneous, but without going into further detail publicly. This came after they never published its June report, which would have normally been released at the start of July. I did talk about it elsewhere, but not here. After a couple of comments in various places, I forgot about it just as most others have. I didn't have reason to think about it again.
Not until Josh Marshall brought it back up.
In reporting the statistics for visitors to his website, Talking Points Memo, he repeated that dubious statistic: "about 10% of people [use] Macs". It's not his error, and the statistic is an aside to his actual point. But it shows how the internet can continue to spread questionable information, even after it has been corrected. Though in this case, the correction came eight months later. In fact, this misinformation was compounded by more misinformation for six additional months. Actually, the questionable methodology was driving reporting for years.
These reports could have driven the behavior of others. It might have induced more coverage of Macs in the regular tech press and even the general press. That might have encouraged more people to buy Macs. That might have caused Microsoft to panic and begin to hammer back with advertising. That might have even encouraged hackers and criminals to start to look for ways to attack OS X.
Now, rereading the piece written by Philip Elmer-DeWitt of CNNMoney/Fortune comes an allegation more troubling. According to Net Applications, the problems in its data come simply from sampling errors. It says that they have been undersampling international traffic, thus magnifying American trends, thus the general overreporting of usage of Apple products. Howver, in what is essentially a footnote to the piece not followed upon, a few people commenting at Geek.com allege that NetApplication adjusts the data for the benefit of its clients. This is a far more damning accusation. For rather than misakes being made, NetApplications is accused of essentially cooking the books. This is a question that needs to be looked into.
Tis a bit of old news, but John Gruber has been getting a bit of ribbing lately for a few prognostication failures and reporter errors of late. Dan Lyons, roleplaying as Steve Jobs has had a field day tweaking him. Via that same Fake Steve Jobs, there's the discovery of a blog on Tumblr called Things John Gruber is Wrong About. That's not to say Gruber isn't a smart man. He couldn't possibly be as successful as a pundit based outside of the technology press (and perhaps even outside of Silicon Valley) without having a good deal of smarts. However, snark is easy. Punditry is harder, provided your goal is getting stuff right. Reporting, which is far more a fact-finding mission, is hardest of all.
Here is a semi-contrarian view of the Disney purchase of Marvel which kind of expands on criticisms I have of Disney as well. Disney is buying entry into a market it has been dead to for about a decade. Surprisingly, I didn't make a snide joke about it in my brief post noting it, I've been telling people who would here me that Disney has hit a brick wall; the people they seem able to relate to are tween and teen girls. I would not be surprised to learn that they have a last ditch project in the Imagineering Labs to make young boys look and behave more like young girls. That would explain the Jonas Brothers.
As recently as the 90s, Disney could themselves release films that were broad, critically acclaimed hits. Today's Disney can be described as selling fairy tale princesses to girls. What is remarkable is how much its other properties (with the obvious exception of ESPN) has femmed up. ABC TV is essentially the WB Network for grown ups (h/t Jaime Weinman). The Disney Channel, which used to be home to shows like Jet Jackson, The Jersey and Even Stevens (starring a pre-Transformers Shia LeBeouf) is now almost entirely devoted to shows starring future female Disney pop stars. Miley Cyrus. Selena Gomez (summary). Again, the Jonas. And for all of the work Disney spent relaunching little watched Toon Disney into Disney XD as a male counterpart to The Disney Channel, XD is still far more popular with girls. (Curiously, it may be because they write the boys in XD shows as having doubts and insecurities, which would make them more appealing to girls than boys. Quote the article: "Amid their tomfoolery, the lead characters sometimes turn to the camera to agonize over decisions, expressing self-doubt in a way that is reassuring to girl audiences,")
For this entire decade, Disney could not pay a boy to partake in entertainment from the castle branded company. Now the House of Mouse pins its hopes on the House of Ideas, though critics will note the ideas are still 30 plus years old. They will still need good people to execute those ideas. Whether or not Marvel has those people remain to be seen,
