4 ms·
@dang The title should be renamed "Available today, the Oceanic+ app on Apple Watch Ultra" Because the current title of "Apple Introduces Oceanic+" implies th
by tiffanyh 4y ago
@dang
The title should be renamed "Available today, the Oceanic+ app on Apple Watch Ultra"
Because the current title of "Apple Introduces Oceanic+" implies this is a 1st party app from Apple, which it is not.
- scarface74 4y agoNo part of the definition of “introduction” implies that it is a first party app.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y agoTo introduce: “…; originate: introduced the new product in several test markets; ….” [1] [1] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/introduce https://www.thefreedictionary.com/introduce
- scarface74 4y agoIt still doesn’t imply it’s a first party product. I can “introduce Angular to my team”. That doesn’t mean I wrote Angular.
- mattigames 4y ago"Google introduces Angular" does mean that (even if you didn't knew what Angular is beforehand)
- scarface74 4y agoIt absolutely doesn’t. People have been “introducing” other people for centuries. Where in any dictionary doesn’t imply any such thing? So if a consultant from McKinsey “introduces cloud best practices to company $x”, does that imply that McKinsey created AWS?
- mattigames 4y agoAll your examples include "to", an specific demographic which implies it wasn't created by them, languages have a lot of subtext clues like that.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y agoIndeed, it doesn’t imply creating a product; “introduce” can directly mean creating a product through the sense of originate: ”…create…” [1] [1] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/originate https://www.thefreedictionary.com/originate
- xdavidliu 4y ago
- scarface74 4y ago“Words Mean Things”. Tell me where in any dictionary does “introducing” something imply who created it?
- mgkimsal 4y agohttps://www.dictionary.com/browse/introduce https://www.dictionary.com/browse/introduce to create... as if for the first time;
- scarface74 4y agoOut of the six definitions and you conveniently skip the first one: > to present (a person) to another so as to make acquainted. Which is exactly what Apple did in the submitted post. Also if you look at the 2-4th definitions. The submitted title jibes directly with what Apple did.
- FireBeyond 4y agoIf you're going to complain that he skipped the first definition (hint, subsequent are no less valid), then I'm going to complain that as the app is not a person, the first definition is invalid.
- mgkimsal 4y ago"Tell me where in any dictionary does “introducing” something imply who created it" I just did, then you moved the goalposts.
- andreysolsty 4y agoWhy change from one made up title to another when we could just use the _actual_ title: “Reach new depths with the Oceanic+ app and Apple Watch Ultra”
- nsxwolf 4y agoSounds like an ad.
- notatoad 4y agoit is an ad
- tonystarch 4y ago
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago“Available today, the Oceanic+ app on Apple Watch Ultra” is directly quoting the sub-title, from the press release. Seems like the proper candidate for HN story title, to avoid the marketing-speak in the actual title.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dang 4y agoWe usually change corporate press release titles because they're usually misleading, linkbaity, or both. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=press%20release%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dang 4y agoThanks, I've changed it now. It still sounds too pressreleasey but not too bad.