Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Ryan Tyler
About
Ryan's posts

Post has attachment
The tech media Apple adoration Blitzkrieg is in full effect. My Reader tech feed is absolutely ablaze with iPad stories. No other company is so privileged so as to release a relatively minor upgrade and receive such media coverage/adoration in return.

And all the while, the Foxconn meat grinder keeps churning. Let's not forget about that.

Shiny products are fun. Shiny products get page views. But somewhere, someone is paying for this ride. Mike Daisey does a nice job describing who below.

Post has attachment
Really incredible work by Mike Daisey here. Thanks for keeping them honest Mike- or at least showing how they aren't.

Post has attachment
A few weeks ago I wrote a piece arguing why Apple's iBooks2 software would actually drive up education costs by forcing everyone to buy an iPad (http://betanews.com/2012/01/19/mr-university-president-please-dont-adopt-apples-ibooks-2-platform/) . In it I claimed " with iBooks 2 Apple isn’t trying to sell you innovation, they’re just trying to sell you iPads."

The infographic in the linked Mashable piece says it all.

Post has attachment
I must say based on some of the comments I received on my post about Apple's role in China last week (http://betanews.com/2012/01/30/we-must-blame-apple-for-china/) I was starting to think perhaps the call for increased Apple responsibility was going to die out. Now I'm not so sure.

Post has attachment
Earlier this week I wrote a story for Betanews, "We must Blame Apple for China." (http://betanews.com/2012/01/30/we-must-blame-apple-for-china/) In it I identified the logical fallacies that underlie the current Apple apologist arguments as they relate to China. Mike Daisey does something similar in this must read blog post in which he challlnges the apologist attitude of Stephen Fry as well as the apologist article and inforgraphic from Forbes' Tim Worstall. It's a great read.

Post has attachment
My new piece on Betanews.

Post has attachment
Check out my new piece on Betanews.

Post has attachment
Last week in my piece "If you're a teacher, you're nuts not to use Google+" (http://goo.gl/uD6Ha) I made the following statement:

Many pundits have crowed about the imminent failure of Google+ as a social network. Reports of the drop in usage, lack of Google CEO participation and inability to beat Facebook abound. I find most to be unfounded smear campaigns asserted by pundits for unknown reasons (see Mike Elgan’s refutation of Google+ "desertion" reports here http://goo.gl/qjBf7 ).

Slate's article plays upon every one of those points. What it doesn't mention is any actual evidence, other than the author's opinion, that would lead one to believe that G+ will be dead in a year or two. Why has G+'s time to compete come and gone? If there really is "little it [Google] can do to prevent Google+ from becoming a ghost town," where are the numbers to back up this claim?

Pretty standard smear article, really.

What I still don't get is why this guy and the other pundits care so much that this social network go down.

Post has attachment
Excellent piece by my colleague, +Joe Wilcox

Post has attachment
I think Google + is education's "killer app." Read my latest piece at Betanews to find out why.
Wait while more posts are being loaded