David Pogue and John Gruber have gone head-to-head, highlighting an increasing problem in IT journalism. Pogue reporting on the Samsung Chromebook:

How well does Google’s newfangled concept hold up in the real world? Unfortunately, not very well. […] With very few exceptions, when the Chromebook isn’t online, it’s a 3.3-pound paperweight. Truth is, considering how stripped-down the Samsung is, you have to wonder why it’s as big, heavy and expensive as it is. You can find plenty of full-blown Windows laptops with the same price, weight and size. Maybe the Chromebook concept would fly if it cost $180 instead of $500.

Wow, that sounds pretty poor. But Pogue concludes:

For now, though, you should praise Google for its noble experiment. You should thrill to the possibilities of the online future. You should exult that somebody’s trying to shake up the operating system wars. But unless you’re an early-adopter masochist with money to burn, you probably shouldn’t buy a Chromebook.

Pogue’s conclusion is weak, and the qualifier if anything makes things worse. He’s written about something with a lot of problems, but argued we should praise Google, for creating something that would have been exciting a couple of years back or if the iPad (or the MacBook Air, for that matter) didn’t exist. Gruber:

Would everyone have praised Apple for its “noble experiment” if the $500 iPad had been too big and heavy, felt like it was worth only $180, and was “a 3.3-pound paperweight” when offline? Fuck that. This is the big leagues. There is no credit for trying.

Only there is, all over the tech pundit world. Apple gets slammed for the slightest perceived drawback or very real fuck-up; by comparison, other companies are too often congratulated for churning out garbage, because, hey, you shouldn’t be expected to be Apple, right? That’s utter bollocks, and the sooner everyone is held to the same standards, the better the entire tech industry will be. This also goes in ‘reverse’, for Apple pundits, by the way, who argue everything at Cupertino is spiffy when it isn’t.

So, pundits, if something is utter crap, have the balls to say so. If something is at best a botched, half-arsed attempt to compete with another product, tell it like it is. And if a massive company spends years and millions of bucks working on a product that turns out to have some potential but in reality is a waste of time and space, don’t praise them and don’t call them noble—bury them.

John Walker’s coverage of Tim Langdell’s latest disaster is gold for anyone who’s been following the case. And if you feel any pity for Langdell, don’t. Over the years, he’s had numerous developers and creatives claim they’ve not received payment, bullied dozens of companies into paying him over marks he couldn’t defend, sued indie developers (and other companies) who had the audacity to use the word ‘edge’ somewhere in their product names, provided inaccurate submissions to the USPTO in order to get marks, lied to courts in the US and UK, and claimed to have ‘spawned’ Edge magazine and numerous other products (including, bizarrely, a Marvel comic). Additionally, it’s revealed in Walker’s story that Future paid off Langdell in 2004, to the tune of $275,000, in order to get him to shut the hell up and go away. In return, he cunningly carried on claiming to have invented Edge, including a US version, and said he’d designed the Edge logo and that Future ripped him off. Shameless. On the plus side, the section about the 5.25-inch disk in Walker’s piece is a fantastic read and great advice on what not to do if you’re ever involved in a court case relating to IP issues.

Maybe Lodsys, currently suing pretty much the entire world, should take note. Langdell survived when he went after the small guys, but by becoming prominent and biting off more than he could chew (i.e. EA over Mirror’s Edge and Future over Edge magazine), he’s been given international spankage. I rather hope the same happens to Lodsys.

Note: for the full bonkers Langdell story, Chaos Edge is your best bet.

It looks like the rumours regarding Doctor Who, sparked by Private Eye, weren’t that far off. While the BBC clearly won’t say the show is in chaos and has committed to another 14 episodes, when they’re going out is a concern. According to Digital Spy, BBC One controller Danny Cohen has confirmed Doctor Who will not get a full-length series in 2012. Instead, some of the 14 episodes will air in 2012, and the remainder will be broadcast in 2013, possibly as part of a run of anniversary episodes.

Of course, the series is split this year. We’ve already have the first seven episodes,  culminating in A Good Man Goes to War, and the rest will air in the autumn. However, this makes sense, because Doctor Who’s ratings fell off a cliff during summer broadcasts. Running the show in late spring and early autumn increases the number of eyes watching. But splitting the series over 2012 and 2013 effectively reduces Doctor Who to the UK’s second-shortest run tier, the six- or seven-episode series. With the show finally gaining a foothold in the USA, it’s bizarre that the BBC is reducing output further, and I can only imagine the show is now too expensive for the corporation, despite its potential for sales and merchandising. Either that or some higher-ups at the BBC still hate the show (as was well documented in the 1980s) and are reigning it in.

Regardless, this seems a crazy decision for the BBC to make. Doctor Who has become a flagship show, and although it’s not to everyone’s tastes, it’s inventive, unique, fun and quintessentially British. Still, I’m sure the BBC won’t have trouble filling the time-slot with yet another generic talent show.

UPDATE: Show-runner Steven Moffat on Twitter:

Dr Who: misquotes and misunderstandings. But I’m not being bounced into announcing the cool stuff before we’re ready. Hush, and patience.

What this means is anyone’s guess, given that Cohen’s words left little alternate interpretation.

UPDATE 2: BBC blames 2012 Who shortfall on show-runner Moffat’s workload, since he’s also dealing with the second series of Sherlock.

UPDATE 3: Moffat on Twitter say the BBC are talking shit.

You’ve got to love the juxtaposition. The Economist reckons Apple will, like IBM, last 100 years, because

it has a powerful organising idea: take the latest technology, package it in a simple, elegant form and sell it at a premium price. Apple has done this with personal computers, music players, smartphones and tablet computers, and is now moving into cloud-based services. Each time it has grabbed an existing technology and produced an easier-to-use and prettier version than anyone else. This approach can be applied to whatever technology is flavour of the month.

If we nip back over the past decade or so, you’ve got the iPod in 2001, the iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010—and that ignores all the various flavours of iPod released after the original one, along with Apple’s many computer innovations (such as the screen-only iMac and the new MacBook Air). It’s only natural, then, that Wall Street thinks Apple is doomed. CNN Money reports RBC’s Mike Abramsky saying Apple’s poor stock performance

reflects market uncertainty regarding what will drive the next leg of growth, how much or not Android will impact Apple, Steve [Jobs]’s health, etc

The iPad, not long out of the gate, transforming the entire PC industry, but, man, what’s next Apple? WHY HAVEN’T YOU RELEASED SOMETHING NEW IN 2011, YOU LAZY BASTARDS?

And then there’s BCG Partner’s Collin Gillis:

A year ago, the iPad was a new source of revenue for Apple. Growth over zero was tremendous. Now it’s not, and revenue growth has to slow down.

Because, clearly, Apple’s diminishing share of a rapidly growing industry will mean it’ll make no money. Or something. Man, if only Apple was reporting record earnings. (Apple Reports Second Quarter Results: Record March Quarter Drives 83 Percent Revenue Growth, 95 Percent Profit Growth—Apple.) Oh.

According to MacRumors, iWeb is dead:

One concerned iWeb/MobileMe user emailed Apple CEO Steve Jobs to ask about the fate of the offering, and reportedly received confirmation that users will indeed need to find alternative hosting for their sites once MobileMe is officially discontinued. All existing MobileMe users have received free subscription extensions through June 30, 2012, at which time the service will cease to exist and the transition to iCloud will be complete.

Assuming the email is genuine, Jobs replies in typically succinct fashion; the user asks “Will I need to find an alternative website builder and someone to host my sites?” and Jobs replies: “Yep.”

Frankly, this isn’t exactly a shock. iLife was updated in 2011, and iWeb was noticeably unchanged from its 2009 incarnation. The app also didn’t make it to the Mac App Store, unlike iPhoto, GarageBand and iMovie. It’s almost certain that iDVD has also been shot in the head.

I’m in two minds as to the news itself, though. As a web designer, I always found iWeb ‘quirky’ (that’s putting it as kindly as I can) and its fixed-page means of creating sites (and, worse, blogs) seemed anachronistic in an age of WordPress and Facebook. Nonetheless, I know a lot of people who find the application easy to use and they will be disappointed to see confirmation of its demise. Still, this is a good opportunity for the likes of RapidWeaver and Sandvox to grab some users, along with enterprising developers to create iWeb-import tools for said apps.