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).

Last week, PC Pro ran the article Book service in doubt for UK iPad, which, unintuitively, had Apple confirm that the iBooks service for the UK iPad wasn’t in doubt. Clearly, PC Pro had fired up the link-bait-o-tron and set it to maximum-capture mode. I figured it’d be a while before a major site would run a headline this stupid about iPad.

It turns out I was wrong—Engadget managed in just one day, with the spectacularly misleading iPad UI gets ported to the iPhone and iPod touch. The inaccurate part of the title is to do with the fact that the article shows the iPad UI not getting ported to the iPhone and iPod touch, but instead some guy mucking about with Cydia and a jailbroken device to add a theme that more or less resembles iPad.

So, congratulations, Engadget, on your stupid, deceptive headline. And people wonder why no-one takes online journalism seriously.

Once upon a time, there was a game called Diamond Mine. It had you swap jewels in a grid and create chain reactions for big scores. It was much fun and so Microsoft hosted it on Microsoft Zone and the game was renamed Bejeweled.

The game became insanely popular—the web’s Tetris—and spawned sequels and versions for many platforms. Clones appeared, including the excellent Zoo Keeper for Nintendo DS, which hugely ramped up the concept’s speed and excitement levels.

Eventually, PopCap retaliated with the stunning Bejeweled Blitz, a Facebook app that was also welded to the iPhone version of Bejeweled 2. The hook: one minute and no waiting for the grid to settle before swapping more jewels. It took the polish and addictive qualities of Bejeweled and smashed them into the exciting speed of Zoo Keeper. Power-ups created frantic, thrilling games, and online scoreboards enabled you to battle friends.

All was good in the land, and they all lived happily ever after… Except they didn’t, because PopCap then ruined its game. If there’s one thing the company should have learned from Tetris, it’s that adding complexity to a simple game screws with the format. And if there’s something PopCap should have learned from online gaming, it’s that level playing fields are important, unless you want to turn your creation into forced grinding depression, MMO-style.

Bejeweled Blitz now has ‘coins’. These enable you to buy ‘boosts’, to attain higher scores. PopCap presumably argues that this rewards long-time players. I’d argue that long-time play is rewarded by added skill and higher scores. All the revision does is provide people who play the game enough to cherry pick cheats to leapfrog others on the high-score table. So rather than being Tetris, Bejeweled Blitz is now Bejeweled MMO, just about the biggest, saddest drop it could have suffered.