There are times when even the most optimistic pro-business American news organs realize they've gone too far. CNET News.com, for example, published a story this week with the headline "YouTube tests viewer-friendly ad format." The piece - and we mean that literally - covered Google's decision to place ad pop-ups at the bottom …
Before the mail arrives
It should be noted that the author of the CNET story had a revelation overnight. The not annoying ads are, in fact, annoying.
Oooh, I don't think I want to see that...
"If you look at the bog posts from, say, Peter Glaskowsky"
One hopes he has plenty of bog paper.
Montalvo's doing fine, thanks
Vance could have asked me about Montalvo if he'd wanted to. We were both at Hot Chips this week. But it's easier to write ignorant things when you're actually ignorant...
Anyway, we're still not talking about what we're building, but there's no need to worry about us.
CNET's policy is that bloggers must reveal any business relationships with companies covered in blogs. I comply with that policy.
Check out my CNET blog-- now with less ignorance!
PG, thanks for taking time away from you bog to read this story.
Um, I could have talked to you at Hot Chips. You'll remember though that when I asked you about the company last year, you threw a temper tantrum and wouldn't confirm that you're working on a low power chip for mobile devices that will have no market even though that's what you're doing.
And now you're saying that you'd be willing to throw a tantrum and tell me nothing again? How appealing. Can't imagine why I passed.
Grab some popcorn...
oooh... Web 2.0 slugfest inbound
Looks like an Ol' fasioned flame war in the beginnings.... In the Blue Corner the Vulture, trained by Ashlee Vance... In the Red Corner CNET... Lets get ready to Blog!!!
The bloggers and how they're described at http://blogs.cnet.com/
60 Days with the Apple iPhone
by Kevin Ho, Attorney
by Steve Guttenberg, Freelance Home Theater reporter
The Digital Home
by Don Reisinger, Freelance magazine journalist
Digital Noise: Music & Tech
by Matt Rosoff, analyst with Directions on Microsoft, Does NDAs with Microsoft
by Michael Horowitz, Consultant
Girl on Cars
by Laura Burstein, Freelance journalist
by Neal Dikeman, Vinod Khosla, Martin Tobias, and Elon Musk - BAsically venture capitalists
The Macalope: An Apple Blog
by the Macalope, anonymous
by Josh Wolf, longest-incarcerated journalist for contempt of court in U.S. history
by Mark Rutherford, unknown
The Open Road
by Matt Asay, open source advocate
(parent . thesis)
by Amy and Michael Tiemann, webmaster and open source software engineer
Politics, Policy, and Technology
by Donnie Fowler, POlitical hack and VP of VC firm
Ronn's Cellular Obsession
by Ronn Owens, Radio announcer
Searchlight : An SEO Blog
by Stephan Spencer, President of Netconcepts
Speeds and Feeds
by Peter N. Glaskowsky, chief system architect at Montalvo Systems, a Silicon Valley microprocessor-design startup.
Sports Tech, one of the founders of the Titleist Performance Institute in Oceanside, California; and Class A member of the PGA of America
by Dave Phillips
Surface : A Design Blog
by Jean Aw, Designer, operates notcot.com
by Steve Tobak, marketing consultant and former chip industry executive.
The Web Services Report
by Harrison Hoffman, newspaper reporter, Windows Live MVP, and co-founder of LiveSide.net,
Would someone please point me at the guys with the white hats ?
Have to admit tho that the Vultures cynical view chimes enough with my own that the red corner seems more appealing.
OK girls, handbags at dawn it is :)
too bad US residents are not allowed to place wagers with UK bookies.
i'd love to see the odds on this one. a blagg...um, blogger (likely bound by an NDA from a stealth startup) vs. a Vulture reporter. quick, someone put down a plastic sheet.
remember, people, "what happens on the internet, stays on the internet." may not be worth the pissing match, if one is a (corporate) suit.
besides, i hear reporters fight dirty.
Oh great CNET 2.0....
CNET 1.0 sucked when they had actual reporters, lord help us now that they have embraced the blogging format.
I did the same thing I always do-- I smiled, chuckled, and explained that I can't say.
I showed no temper at all. That isn't like me. I get the question all the time, usually from friends, professional contacts, and other people I like and respect. I certainly wouldn't develop some angry reflex.
And you know there were several other people present when we spoke last year who can confirm the pleasant nature of our conversation. Perhaps some of them will post here. Remember, you should only lie about things when nobody can check up on you.
Thanks, though, for confirming that you chose not to give me a chance to respond to this rumor about Montalvo before you published it. Your confession ensures that nobody will take your comment seriously.
Thanks for writing in again. You're a star.
Um, your selective memory is actually a bit scary at this point. Your self-defensive whining may not have counted as a temper tantrum in your book, but it sure does in mine.
Again, your begging to be called about Montalvo is asinine. I've left messages on just about every employees' voicemail without anyone ever ringing back. I've emailed you, and I've asked you directly about the company, and all you've ever said is that you can't say anything. (If you deny this, you're more delusional than I thought.)
I understand that you're laying off members of your software team. I hear nothing but disaster stories about the company from multiple people in the valley. And, again, you're making a product that no one wants.
When you're ready to say more than "we're fine," give me a ring or send me an e-mail or type it here in the comments.
Really, we're fine. :-)
And thanks again, this time for distinguishing between throwing a temper tantrum and merely whining. I feel like we're making real progress.
Hey, don't you have to say "whinging" on El Reg?
You sound like a stroppy teenager.
People who use phrases such as "I feel like we're making real progress," are arseholes plain and simple.
Why is a graphics file format posting on this comments board?
Shouldn't Peter Glaskowsky be told that he's being impersonated in this manner?
Is it CNET policy to have file formats fill in for authors wherever possible (something to do with elevating the quality of posts perhaps)?
We should be told.
On the form shown in these comments, my fifty quid's on the Vulture.
The only way the elusive file format can win (apart from not getting involved in the first place... oooops) would be to actually provide some worthwhile information, rather than the petulant whin(g)ing that they appear to have a record of. Since that appears to be unlikely, the longer this goes on, the more he humiliates himself.
"I feel like we're making real progress" :-P
While CNET tries to sort out its place in the bogger kingdom
I didn't realise CNET lived in Eire outside Dublin....
"We're fine" translates to......
Is it just me, or is it everytime a higher up bod says "we're fine" what they actually mean is "i'm fine because i'm selling all my stuff to the highest bidder while firing all my staff"? Maybe i'm being too cynical.......
£100 sterling on the vulture please
It certainly annoyed me!
I was trying to watch a clip that had subtitles. Buried under the advertising, the subtitles were illegible. Thanks, guys!
"too bad US residents are not allowed to place wagers with UK bookies"
And why can't you just place a wager with a local bookie? Surely they'd be the ones giving the best odds on events taking place in the USA .....
If you need more info on Montalvo
Don't bother looking here http://www.montalvosystems.com/index.html
I suppose the clue was in the "stealth" part
Online bookies no, that's considered a violation of trade laws for a foreign country to offer gambling services to an American.
So a company in the UK running an online gambling site must actively block Americans from using the service.
Violation of trade laws?
@Joe Cooper -- Interesting. I'd've thought it'd be a violation of trade laws to block anybody based on nationality, except possibly if they are from a state with whom we are either at war or engaged in some form of trade sanctions. Why aren't we supposed to take money from Americans, if they're offering it? Have they a history of cheating?
Anyway, why need it be a UK bookie? What's wrong with just going to an American bookmaker?
I guess irony is lost on some people
When I said "we're making real progress" (referring to the banter between Ashlee and me), I figured everyone would recognize it as a humorous and mildly ironic euphemism for "you're hopeless."
Apparently I overestimated some of you.
Never fear, I will not lose hope. We all start out ignorant and become wiser over time (which is what I meant by "now with less ignorance," just to clear that up). Those of you for whom my humor was too subtle this time may learn to recognize it next time. Slowly, one step at a time, the world will become a better place.
P.S. Actually the graphics file format was named after me in recognition of my many years of diligent downloading.
P.P.S. That was also a joke.
Nice one Pete....
Yet another post. Still smug. Still zero information.
Ashlee wrote "... he refuses to reveal what his company actually does."
You claim he should have asked you.
You still haven't revealed the slightest clue about what your company actually does. In fact, in your first reply you made it clear that you will continue to refuse to. Yet somehow, you still think Ashlee should have asked you what your company does. Why?
Ashlee wins. You fail.
You'll never make it that way
I thought the point of a silicon valley start-up was to get bought by Google? That's never going to happen if they don't know what you do! At this rate you might have to even release a product before they buy you out.
If you have VCs they must be pissed at you.
Clearing up some confusion
I said Vance could have asked me about the rumor of Montalvo's "imminent demise." I wasn't inviting him to ask about our product plans.
After all, he can't have known what I would say about the rumor.
If Vance had asked me about that, I would have said that there is no basis to the rumor. He didn't ask because he didn't want to know.
That's just The Register's style of reporting-- not like a vulture, but like an ostrich with its head in the sand and its ass in the air.
P.S. Excuse me, that should be "arse."
P.P.S. Ostriches do not actually put their heads in the sand. Only reporters for The Register do.
P.P.P.S. I hope everyone understands this is all in good fun. By all accounts, Vance is a nice fellow. He's just doing his job.
P.P.P.P.S. Please read my blog: http://speedsnfeeds.com
@ AJ and the US bookies
i doubt US bookies would give odds on Vulture vs. Attitude. too many idiots in the US have "failed upward" in the last 7 years (that's when a massive screwup is rewarded with a promotion and/or cash prizes).
surely you've noticed some minor issues with the US real estate market...and national debt, trade deficit, fraud, waste, corruption, cronyism, patronage, incompetence, secrecy, megalomania, ignorance, religiosity, war, pollution, Gitmo, and the sorry excuse for an Attorney General, i could go on, but you get the point, would you like fries with that?
people are risk-averse just now...especially bookies, i would think.
now, consider our graphic friend here.
glib, check. condescending, check. smugly sarcastic, check. zero useful content, check.
Donald Rumsfeld, is that you?
Keep it up guys..
I feel like asking why anyone would keep their company's product secret if they really something that would sell for actual money. However there are a couple of good reasons for why you might be doing this.
Seriously hope yours is one of them, or for all that "Montalvo's doing fine, thanks", it won't be if the money finds out you don't have anything worth selling. Classic so-called dot.com stuff, idiots pour money into something that sounds whizzbang, without looking to see if what they are actually investing in is a really nice Malibu house full of flat-screen TVs, and a bunch of terrific-looking sports cars.
On the other hand if that's what you are doing, "hats off to you", because I feel like an opportunity was badly lost by missing out on that particular insanity.
Keep up the back and forth - its nearly as entertaining as one of Ashley's articles (which are usually top quality in of themselves and gave birth to the brilliant concept that Google murders penguins).
Is this the same Peter that said this in June of 2005?
Regarding Apple's switch to Intel CPUs...
Peter Glaskowsky, analyst for The Envisioneering Group, in Seaford, N.Y.: "It's a bunch of bull...Firstly, Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average. The G5 is a smaller, more efficient chip than the Pentium 4, and IBM has no other customers willing to buy large quantities."
Spot on as always!
Yup, that was me
I also wrote this for eWeek after Apple's Intel announcement:
Recently, I described rumors that Apple would switch from PowerPC to x86 microprocessors as "a bunch of bull."
OK, I was wrong. I apologize to Don Clark and Nick Wingfield of the Wall Street Journal, David Utter of WebProNews, Paul Thurrott of winsupersite.com, and all the other journalists I called "dupes" for going along with what I thought was a tired, old, often-recycled rumor.
In my defense, I should say that the only thing these reporters got right was the bottom line: Apple is, indeed, switching to x86—Steve Jobs announced the details at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference on Monday—but all of the supporting arguments offered by the Apple-Intel rumormongers were indeed "bull."
And it goes on from there.
Anyway, it's nice to see a long-time fan posting here. Thanks!
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web video' cannon to SINK Netflix
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? I need a password to BRAKE? What? No! STOP! Aaaargh!
- Episode 13 BOFH: WHERE did this 'fax-enabled' printer UPGRADE come from?
- Vulture at the Wheel Ford's B-Max: Fiesta-based runaround that goes THUNK