I'm not convinced. The wiki article you linked to is a paragraph in an article about a novelist, not an article about widely-accepted term. And rightfully so.

I'm not convinced. The wiki article you linked to is a paragraph in an article about a novelist, not an article about widely-accepted term. And rightfully so. Google Plus and Google Glass were big bets in my view. That doesn't take away from Google being unscrupulous in ending unsuccessful offerings. That's part of what made them succesful, I assume. Journalists often use hyperbole or simplify complex facts to deliver an interesting and easily understandable story. That doesn't make every sinplification a gross misrepresentation. You're free to dive deeper into any topic you want, but it's delusional to expect every reader to be an expert in every field. Bashing journalism as a whole has become common gospel, but to me it seems that the effect of that thinking is not that people become better informed. The article sounds Google-friendly and uncritical to me, but it's also very common to cover interviews in a way that represents the views of the interviewed person.