Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks
From: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: AC TECH is looking for "review board" volunteers
Message-ID: <4888@orbit.cts.com>
Date: 12 May 91 04:44:16 GMT
Sender: news@orbit.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 96

cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) writes:
>>Gee, this is wonderful.  in the latest AC there was a
>>knock-down-drag-through-the-mud-AmigaWorld-is-the-Anti-Christ-of-publications
>>and the turn around and copy the AmigaWorld Tech Journals lead. 
>
>I don't think AW has any special claim to the concept of
>"technical review staff".  I think AC Tech should have had one
>before now, but better late than never, and no shame because the
>other journal did it first.

Granted, but my point was not that AC didn't have a right to do so, it was
that AC just went through a rave about AmigaWorld and then turns around and
copies them.

>
>>I looked
>>through the AC tech journal and thought to myself "so what's so tech about
>>this?"  I mean, it was filled with beginners articles that have always been in
>>the regular AC.  while the AmigaWorld Tech Journal had helpful thought out
>>articles for those that already know quite a bit about the machine, but don't
>>happen to have any experience in that particular area.
>
>I agree that the quality of articles in AC Techs issue #1 and #2
>varied somewhat widely.  I think there were some excellent
>articles therein.  I agree that the AW V1#1 was a better, albeit
>smaller, effort--but then they had Commodore people writing for
>them.  Money talks to a certain degree, and I think AW,
>as a publication of enormous IDG, has more of that.

No, i think it was that AmigaWorld started their Tech Efforts first and got
the best people.  AC turns around and feels it's being left in the cold so it
does the same thing and finds that all the good people have been taken.
>
>> I will NEVER buy
>>another issue of AC since the last editorial and found the AC Tech Journal to
>>be worthless.  i had previously liked AC, felt they covered some areas that
>>were left out by many other publications, but AC's Attitude lately has been so
>>hypocritical that it offends my sensibilities.  well, sorry for the bandwidth,
>>but i just felt that needed to be said.
>>
>I respect your opinion but must disagree.  Despite the good
>quality of AmigaWorld Tech Journal, AmigaWorld magazine proper
>has offended my sensibilities a few times too often.  I
>cancelled my subscription when I figured out that whenever I
>knew something about a topic, AW got it significantly wrong.  I
>find their approach very cosmetic, containing very little useful
>information, and of course their cutesy style is legendary.

Well, i've never had the occasion to find flaws in articles myself, not that
i'm saying they aren't there, but any magazine can have errors, and AmigaWorld
is no exception, i might say that i found many errors in AC as well.  I also
agree that AW may be a bit too commercial, but I think they cover things quite
well for the novice.  that's what the Tech Journal is all about, if it's more
than a novice can handle it should go to the Tech Journal.

>
>Not that this explains the AC editor's actions.  But if the
>facts he mentioned are true, then I find his response justified.
>If you withhold a story for the benefit of the Amiga community
>in general, and a competitor runs it against the wishes of CBM,
>then an editorial is the appropriate response/explanation.  No
>problem there.

If you read the editorial carefully you can read between the lines :
 
 "We are still piecing the story together"  translates into "We didn't even
know about this A3000T until we found out AmigaWorld was running the Article
which was too late to do anthing about it."
 
 nowhere did they say that CBM had told them not to run the story.  I have
heard no rumors that AmigaWorld go into trouble with CBM because they did. 
The 3000T WAS shown at CeBit in Germany several weeks prior to AmigaWorld
hitting the shelves.  if CBM shows the machine publicly it's fair game for
anyone to write a review of it.  i saw tons of people talking about it hereon
usenet.  
 
 "Obtained an engineering prototype..." means that CBM gave them a machine to
review.  why would cbm give them such a machine if it wasn't meant to be
reviewed?

 In short, AC was jealous.  that's all there is to it, their editorial was
nothing more than a public mud-slinging match.

 I don't think #1 of the Tech journal was all that small.  there were about a
dozend articles and they were very good.  about the same number you'd find in
another publication, just because they didn't fill them with source code to
fill up page space, that doesn't mean it's small.

.--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back |
| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil        | from the dead, but do  |
| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org                  | you really think he's  |
|-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?"        |
| Amiga programmer at large, employment options   | Lou Diamond Philips in |
| welcome, inquire within.                        | "The First Power".     |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'