Answer: unrealistic expectations followed by inevitable disappointment.

In the meantime, feel free to re-read How to update your online store, the Apple way.

Over the past 24 hours, lots of publications have reported on a stupid Vodafone employee posting an inappropriate and homophobic message to the company’s Twitter feed.

Perhaps surprisingly, the media didn’t erupt in a frenzy of “social networking is evil” rants, although, inevitably, a number of individuals are claiming they’ll cancel their Vodafone accounts, due to the incident.

Personally, I think such people are idiots. Yes, the comment posted was unsavoury, but I tend to think you find out a lot about a company by how it deals with problems such as this. Vodafone could so easily have established a PR smokescreen, or it could have lied and claimed its feed was hacked. Instead, it told the truth. It said one of its staff (now suspended) had posted the message, and it replied and publicly apologised on Twitter to everyone asking about what had happened.

I don’t have any day-to-day dealings with Vodafone, and so I cannot comment on the quality and standards of the company in general. However, in the manner in which this incident was dealt with, I don’t really see how anyone could have asked for anything more, perhaps bar Vodafone management taking a little more interest in exactly who has access to the (usually very helpful) Twitter feed.

Adam Banks on Flash:

Flash is a technology that emerged from 1990s multimedia and appeals to developers, especially developers who aren’t really developers and are hoping they can get away with it.

I’m going to be smiling for the rest of the day now.

It’s getting to be that a day doesn’t go by without an incredibly stupid article regarding Apple’s iPad. Today’s piece of stunning ineptitude comes from a publication that should know better: FT.com. Jonathan Zittrain writes in A fight over freedom at Apple’s core (did you see what he did there?) the following doozy:

Users no longer own or control the apps they run – they merely rent them minute by minute.

This is, of course, entirely accurate, unless you’re some kind of anal control freak who demands that accuracy be equated with ‘the truth’ and ‘facts’.

Zittrain also sets off the blah-blah-blah alarm regarding Apple being evil and closed, citing the wonderful ‘open’ nature of Android. Anybody can do anything with Google, apparently, because it’s not remotely evil and its devices are open, smell of roses and are made of unicorn tears. Really. And if you believe that, or that in the long run Google’s supposedly ‘open’ stance will be any better for developers and end users than Apple’s ‘closed’ one, I have a bridge to sell you.

What is it about Apple that attracts dumb analysts, like a moth to a stupid lamp? In his article Is Apple’s iPad Worth the Money? for CBS MoneyWatch, Andrew J. Nusca, using some creative (read: batshit-mental) maths, arrives at the conclusion that Apple’s $499 iPad ‘could’ in fact cost you $2441 (or $1600—see below). His reasoning seems to stem from the fact that:

• You could opt to buy the more expensive 32GB version (an extra $100);
• You could opt to add 3G functionality (an extra $130);
• You could splash out $29.99 every month for data;
• You could spend $68 per year (Andrew’s very specific) on TV shows and movies.

Usefully, Andrew’s strange article then helpfully points out some benefits of owning an iPad—savings on moving to digital for magazine and book purchases ($656 for people who buy the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time and Economist), and not having to buy a Kindle and a netbook ($609—and, no, I’m not making this up). Unfortunately, I got lost at the point where he started arguing with himself regarding whether it was a cost benefit or not to have a Kindle over an iPad.

Towards the end, he bumbles to the conclusion that an iPad’s ‘bottom line’ is $1600, and that “as an investment for your productivity, it’s clear that it’s one on which you may never see a concrete return”. I’m just hoping I never get repeatedly smacked around the head with the stupid lamp, otherwise Revert to Saved will turn into a blog about OUTRAGE regarding the fact a £50 DVD player ‘could’ cost you thousands, since:

• You could opt to buy every DVD you see in the shops (an extra £lots);
• You could decide you want a bigger TV to watch your DVDs on (an extra £even more);
• You could decide that Blu-Ray floats your boat, causing you to start again with your entire collection (an extra £oh my word).