Forbes thinks RSS “doesn’t serve much purpose”

Forbes thinks RSS “doesn’t serve much purpose”: In a Summer 2004 Best of the Web review of the dejazine The Standard, Forbes magazine (one of the original backers of the CueCat) says “RSS feeds (are) a complicated, XML-related way of reading news which doesn’t serve much purpose here.” Ironic, isn’t it, in light of all the new RSS feeds from

(via Denise Howell via (Aug. 6))

Don’t hack off Apple

Don’t hack off Apple: It appears that Apple is not only threatening those who would like to hack iTunes, it is even threatening a compay that wanted to create a magazine devoted to the iPod®. reports Apple is behind the recent change in plans at the IDG Mac publishing unit (no word yet on if they have to change the name to something other than Mac publishing unit) that caused it to do a last-minute change on the previously titled iPod® World magazine. If true, this may explain why the publisher is now saying the magazine is not merely about iPods and why the name has been changed to (even if you click on the URL iPod [®] Playlist. It appears Apple helped the company expand its editorial horizons.

Magazine news

The perils of ad placement: The Bush campaign weblog is gleefully pointing out the coincidence of a Newsweek magazine cover gatefold advertisement that — when folded out — results in a juxtaposition of a (choose one: unfortunate/fortunate) message beside the cover photo of Kerry.

I suggest if this turns into a big controversy it should be dubbed Gatefoldgate. More likely, however, it will remain merely a small flap-flap.

(Note: That last sentence was included especially for Bill Hudgins.)

/. to the rescue

/. to the rescue: Last night, I blogged the thread taking Ziff Davis’ to task for one of the most clueless in-bound linking policies conceived. Later in the evening, Matthew Rothenberg, the executive editor of, jumped into the thread with an apology and announced the company was correcting the situation.

Letter to /. from Rothenberg:

“Hey! I’m the executive editor in charge of — and before this situation unravels any farther, I need to make a couple of quick clarifications about our reprint policy:

While I haven’t gotten all the details about what happened, this legal warning to PocketPCTools seems to be a result of miscommunication within our company. We understand and embrace the principles under which sites such as PocketPCTools link to and excerpt our content. There are plenty of occasions when a professional media company needs to question the wholesale appropriation of its content or the use of its marks. From everything I understand about the PocketPCTools case so far, this is NOT one of those occasions!

We’re moving to correct the situation now … PocketPCTools was apparently acting within the appropriate bounds of Web etiquette — actually, doing us a favor by sending us the traffic — and Ziff Davis was apparently mistaken in issuing this warning.

My personal apologies to anyone inconvenienced by this error. We’re investigating the situation now and will act accordingly.”

For the record, I take back my earlier comment about the eWeek folks appearing to not get the whole “conversation thing.”