5 ms·

A thinly veiled advertisement extolling the virtue of parents who buy apple product for their kids: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/technology/apple-watch-ch

A thinly veiled advertisement extolling the virtue of parents who buy apple product for their kids: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/technology/apple-watch-children-kids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/technology/apple-watch-ch...

Cupertino95014 4y ago
I think it's a thickly veiled ad, if it's an ad at all. It's legitimate news that some parents do it. It's business news that Apple's trying to make it kid-friendly. The article doesn't extoll the virtues of giving a smartwatch to your kids. I guess you wanted them to trash the whole idea? They do say in the first paragraph, "The smart watch cost $279, and he worried that its recipient would immediately break or lose it."
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Ads often mention the price of the product. The article goes on and on about the supposed benefits of giving your kid a smart watch, specifically the Apple brand of smart watch, contrasting it favorably to buying them a phone instead. At the very least, it's not negative coverage of Apple. Even if you think it neutral coverage (I don't), it's a counter-example to the supposed directive that all tech coverage have a negative tone. And they categorized it as tech news, not business news.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    OK, $279 is actually a negative for a lot of parents, but I guess not for you.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      The article is promoting this product as a better alternative than buying a smartphone for your kids. $279 is cheaper than most smartphones. And it's not too hard to find overt Apple ads that list much higher prices. Listing the price of a product in an article singing praises of that product does not constitute the article being critical of Apple.
      - Cupertino95014 4y ago
        Perhaps we've exhausted this topic. I view it as mildly positive and very weak journalism, not balanced. Your view is more drastic. A balanced article would have found some parents who all said, "Hell, no, I'm not buying that for him. He'll lose it inside of a month." There are probably a lot of such parents. As for "singing praises of that product" -- I think that is totally legitimate. It IS a product that does a lot of stuff and some people might like it for that. Do you expect them to invent some faults with it? I'd also expect a real journalist to get some numbers on their sales, not just find one user who likes it. (On the other hand, Walt Mossberg would have tried it for a week and given it a grade, idk what.)

Cupertino95014 4y ago

I think it's a thickly veiled ad, if it's an ad at all. It's legitimate news that some parents do it. It's business news that Apple's trying to make it kid-friendly. The article doesn't extoll the virtues of giving a smartwatch to your kids. I guess you wanted them to trash the whole idea? They do say in the first paragraph, "The smart watch cost $279, and he worried that its recipient would immediately break or lose it."

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Ads often mention the price of the product. The article goes on and on about the supposed benefits of giving your kid a smart watch, specifically the Apple brand of smart watch, contrasting it favorably to buying them a phone instead. At the very least, it's not negative coverage of Apple. Even if you think it neutral coverage (I don't), it's a counter-example to the supposed directive that all tech coverage have a negative tone. And they categorized it as tech news, not business news.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  OK, $279 is actually a negative for a lot of parents, but I guess not for you.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    The article is promoting this product as a better alternative than buying a smartphone for your kids. $279 is cheaper than most smartphones. And it's not too hard to find overt Apple ads that list much higher prices. Listing the price of a product in an article singing praises of that product does not constitute the article being critical of Apple.
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      Perhaps we've exhausted this topic. I view it as mildly positive and very weak journalism, not balanced. Your view is more drastic. A balanced article would have found some parents who all said, "Hell, no, I'm not buying that for him. He'll lose it inside of a month." There are probably a lot of such parents. As for "singing praises of that product" -- I think that is totally legitimate. It IS a product that does a lot of stuff and some people might like it for that. Do you expect them to invent some faults with it? I'd also expect a real journalist to get some numbers on their sales, not just find one user who likes it. (On the other hand, Walt Mossberg would have tried it for a week and given it a grade, idk what.)