Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq
From: chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard,comp.sys.mac
Subject: MacUser Hypercard coverage
Message-ID: <34557@sun.uucp>
Date: Sun, 22-Nov-87 17:16:40 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.34557
Posted: Sun Nov 22 17:16:40 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Nov-87 04:33:56 EST
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 81
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.mac.hypercard:154 comp.sys.mac:10141

Was anyone else disgusted by Steve Bobker's editorial in the latest MacUser?
On how rotten Hypercard was? (Fortunately, Shapiro was on the next page
write exactly the opposite -- the end result being that MacUSer, as usual,
didn't say a damn thing....). 

For those that missed it, Bobker has two main points 'proving' that
Hypercard was bad:

1) Apple's giving it away. And for only one reason, because it'll force
    everyone to go out and buy more memory, causing Apple to make lots of
    money.

Now, while I'll admit that lots of folks are going to want/need more memory,
lots of that upgrade money will be going to third parties, not to Apple. I
don't see a lot of gain for Apple from this one. And Bobker misses the basic
reason why Apple is giving HyperCard away. Bill Atkinson had it written into
his contract. If Apple DID NOT give HyperCard away, ownership reverted back
to Bill and he planned on giving it away himself. Apple basically had no
choice.

It's not as if this is a big secret. It was common knowledge at MacExpo.
It's been all over this network as well as on Delphi (and, I assume, on
CompuServe). The only excuse I can see for this is that Bobker either is
completely ignoring reality or he's creating his own reality in a way to
make Apple look bad. At best, it's shoddy journalism. I'm not impressed.

2) Bobker's other point was that the lack of restriction on the user
    interface will kill the Mac. I almost fell out of my chair laughing over
    this one. His claim is that with everyone doing exactly what they want,
    the cohesiveness of the Mac Interface will die, and so will the mac.

My response is simple. Bull. To put it simply, this isn't a new problem.
Lots of programs have taken lots of liberties with the Mac User Interface
over time. The really strange ones, the ones that broke rules or bent them
in bad ways, tend to go out of business because people won't buy or use
them. They get bad reviews, bad press, and bad sales. 

Others muck with the user interface and occasionally fix something that was
broken, or come up with something the interface forgot. The zoom-window
icon, for instance, came out of an extension in Word 1.0, not out of Apple.
It was a good enough idea that Apple adopted it.

MacUser has the most consistently unprogfessional and immature journalism of
ANY magazine in the Mac universe. This is just the latest instance of shoddy
writing and innuendo. MacUser seems to think that Apple Bashing is a Good
Thing. I'm all for criticizing Apple when they muck up, but MacUser never
seems to have anything good to say. And if the facts don't back them up,
they tend to make up some new facts (just keep an eye on the Rumor Manager
section -- especially the rumors about the Developer Cabal that's going to
file suit over HyperCard. The Cabal seems to consist of Owl, Owl, and Owl).

I'd also like to point out that MacUser is by far the most unprofessional
magazine I've ever attempted to work with from the point of view of a
writer. They've punted four straight queries of mine. Not turned them down,
simply neglected to respond to them at all (and yes, I include return
postage and envelopes). This is pretty nasty, becausze many ideas have
limited time value -- by the time you realize they aren't going to bother
responding, the idea is unsalable elsewhere. This doesn't seem to be a
special case, either. I've talked with two other Macuser writers or
attempted-writers who have had major problems getting timely responses out
of them. I have heard from an unidentified but reliable source that MacUser
lost a senior editorial person to another magazine because they refused to
pay freelancers on a timely basis. Many folks I talk to now refuse to write
for them -- and you can count me on that list now, too.

The latest query was sent after a request in the last issue for queries from
new writers. MacUser specifically asked folks to contact them about writing
for them. So I did, and as part of the letter pointed out my past problems
with getting responses from the magazine and asked for a confirmation of the
letter by November 15 (four weeks for a confirmation of a one page query
letter not being unreasonable). A week past the deadline, nada. Even as
their asking folks to write for them, they're screwing over those that try.

MacUser started out a good magazine. They've turned into a shoddy,
unprofessional, inaccurate rumorsheet. I've let my subscription lapse, and
I've sent them my last query. This kind of magazine the field can do
without. If I were you, if you read MacUser, I'd find a new magazine.

chuq
---
Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach			chuq@sun.COM	Delphi: CHUQ