What the fuck? That was my initial reaction on being told earlier today about an article featuring ‘hot female web designers’. Amazingly, it gets worse. The full article title (no link, because) is “20 Hot Female Web Designers That Will Take Your Breath Away” and is either knowingly trawling the web as link bait or has a disconnect the size of the moon.

It begins:

Sizzling hot designs from hot female web designers will prove that, though web design industry has always been viewed as a world fully packed with men, the best stuff doesn’t always come from them!

Or how about: “Great work from women in the web industry proves that although the industry has long been seen as male-dominated, men definitely don’t create all the best work”?

Female web designers constantly battle to acquire the top spot in web design industry.

And then stupid blog posts screw them over by mentioning them for their physical characteristics rather than their work. Great!

though females are considered extinct in web designing

Extinct? Certainly not. But if they were, it would probably be through being killed off my an avalanche of stupid set off by a volcano of idiocy.

But first let me ask you to hold your breath.

OK. Holding.

To escape from the wrath of the male hot web designers and being accused of being a sexist,

No longer holding. Instead thinking of just how many things can be so wrong in so few words.

let me remind you that this article is made to uplift the spirits of young female web designers.

Nothing is more uplifting than being told you’re hot rather than, say, a great designer!

This is to show the little girls out there that web designing is not just a man’s world. To prove that [site name redacted] is equal in promoting both sexes in web design, feel free to read this post: 15 Most Influential People in Web Design.

Because men are influential but women are merely hot. Got it. (And, no, before you ask, not a single woman is on the influential list—after all, they’re just too hot and, apparently, not influential enough.)

Again: what the fuck?

Daring Fireball responds to Garrett Murray’s thoughts on the 2DS:

The biggest WTF aspect is the price — it’s only $40 cheaper than the regular 3DS.

Yeah, WTF? No other company would create very obvious upsell positioning for its products!

A pity Daring Fireball and various others seem to have decided balance is a bad thing regarding Nintendo, given Lukas Mathis’s Nintendo piece continuing to grow with more insight and facts. If you missed it, I also chimed in yesterday on why Nintendo should not start making iOS games—yet.

Update: For anyone arguing that the gap is bigger—the iPod touch upsell is $70, not $40—do bear in mind the iPod touch costs almost twice as much as Nintendo’s console.

Nintendo has unveiled the 2DS. The console is essentially a cheap version of the 3DS, lacking the 3D capabilities and the hinge. From a design perspective, it’s not the prettiest device in the world (the screen alignment is particularly grim), and the clamshell was one of the best things about the DS hardware, protecting the screen and also making it more portable. By contrast, the 2DS looks unwieldy.

That said, I find it curious people are using the 2DS as some kind of proof Nintendo is doomed. Apple pundit John Gruber said on his blog:

It’s $129. I say they should just give in and start making iOS games. They’re not going to win this battle.

This is a nonsensical argument, especially from someone who has a habit of publicly slamming people who’d say anything remotely similar about Apple. I might think the 2DS is ugly and might not be that nice to hold, but that doesn’t make it a dumb idea. It’s cheap and very obviously positioned for holiday sales. It’s $100 cheaper than the cheapest iPod touch (i.e. about half the price), which immediately places it in a totally different market. And it’s pretty clearly a stop-gap—Nintendo doing its usual thing of wringing out the last drops of income from a hardware line before a refresh. We saw the same thing with the Game Boy Advance—although I’d argue the Micro was a smarter-looking device than the 2DS.

After presumably getting some stick online, Gruber elaborated further:

“Isn’t this like telling Apple to give up on hardware and license Mac OS to other PC makers?” numerous readers have asked. Maybe a little, but it’s a bad comparison. The main thing is it never seemed to me — never — that Apple was incapable of producing excellent industry-leading hardware. They just needed focus and better execution. Nintendo, to me, looks incapable of producing handheld hardware that can compete with the iPhone or iPod Touch.

The question is whether Nintendo wants to compete and whether it needs to. Anecdotally, I hear an awful lot of people telling me their kids no longer bother with Nintendo hardware, and instead use iOS devices; similarly, many teen and adult gamers have ditched Nintendo handhelds for smartphones and tablets. Also, Nintendo’s financials of late haven’t looked nearly as rosy as in the past. Still, I also hear from various parties that the 3DS line has sold very well, and that Nintendo is starting to get the message regarding working with indies and pricing games more sensibly. Last year, I figured that rather than leap to iOS, Nintendo really needed to place more emphasis on digital, embrace more devs, and link with the wider world; I still believe that.

Gruber instead made a more common argument for what Nintendo should do:

I think they’re out of the game and might never get back into it. If they can do it, great — where by “do it” I mean produce a device that’s a better buy for $250 or so than an iPod Touch. But I don’t think they can do it. And if they can’t do it, their next best bet is is to expand to making iOS games. I’m not saying drop the DS line and jump to iOS in one fell swoop. But a couple of $9.99 iPhone/iPad games to test the water wouldn’t hurt.

There’s certainly a possibility that with the new iOS games controller APIs, Nintendo could create a custom controller for iOS, giving relevant iOS Nintendo titles the precision that they’d need to not end up being somewhat unplayable on the platform. I still question this as anything but an absolute last resort. For some reason, Gruber either ignores or dismisses that Nintendo is the Apple of the gaming world—it has succeeded through controlling everything, not just through the games it creates. To say Nintendo should create games for iOS is little different from suggesting a less fortunate Apple should rapidly get iLife and iWork on to other platforms. Even testing the water would be an admission of failure, which would damage the brand.

Perhaps Nintendo’s long-term future is as another Sega, crafting games for hardware that it doesn’t make itself. But the 2DS certainly doesn’t make the case this should happen now. Really, it’s what happens next that will seal Nintendo’s fate. What follows the DS line and the Wii U will be critical for the company, and although plenty (including, at times, me) have largely written off the company, Nintendo has also shown in the past how it has the ability to create something new and innovative seemingly from nowhere, thereby securing its survival and success. This sounds rather like a certain other tech company, and is why certain pundits should know better than to entirely dismiss Nintendo’s future chances.

Further reading: Nintendo, by Lukas Mathis.

I recently wrote about issues regarding Newsstand publication refunds in the event of a magazine being cancelled. When Tap! was cancelled by Future Publishing, I immediately requested a refund and got one; several other people informed me they weren’t so lucky. Apple’s responses varied from outright refusal (“every purchase is final”) through to (oddly) crediting someone for several free movie rentals.

Since I wrote the piece, I’ve helped several people out by sending them the discussion thread I had with Apple. In one case, that was enough for someone to get a refund. In another case, Apple wrote back to me, seemingly confusing the two accounts. I figured questions needed to be asked regarding Apple and Newsstand, because otherwise I’d have no confidence in ever taking out another Newsstand sub beyond one that renewed monthly.

Having done some investigating, it appears Apple is not blind to publication cancellations. I understand that when a publisher notifies Apple that a publication is cancelled, the remainder of the subscription should be refunded; additionally, AppleCare should refund subscriptions when contacted, once the service knows a publication has been cancelled. If AppleCare is not aware of a cancellation, ‘usual’ refund procedures will be followed.

It appears problems people have experienced with Tap! and other publications have been down to confusion in Apple not knowing a subscription has ended early, for whatever reason. This could mean any of the following:

• The publisher not correctly following procedure in letting Apple know a publication has ceased.
• Apple receiving information about a publication being cancelled but not correctly acting on it.
• People requesting refunds not being clear enough in their request.

On that basis, if you’re still wanting a refund from Apple for a Newsstand publication that’s been cancelled, and you don’t fancy pinning your hopes on an automatic refund, clarity is key. You must ensure AppleCare knows you’re asking for a refund for a Newsstand magazine that has ceased publication.

In my case, I reported a problem through the most recent subscription receipt (which you can do through your account in iTunes—see this Gizmodo piece for a visual walkthrough). My wording was to the point: “[Publisher] has stated [publication] magazine has ceased publication and no new issues are going to be released. I am therefore writing to get a refund for my outstanding subscription.”

That did the job for me, and it might work for you. Failing that, feel free to point AppleCare at this post and also to email me if you can’t get your money back for a magazine that’s ceased publication.

Apple’s often been praised for its packaging. A lot of thought goes into the boxes that house Macs and other Apple kit, ensuring your first experience with a product is a pleasurable one—before you’ve even turned it on.

I today set up a new AirPort Extreme after my old one abruptly died (and, no, I’m not looking forward to the Genius Bar appointment, trying to explain UK consumer law to someone saying “but it’s more than a year old, so there’s nothing we can do”). Like a lot of other Apple kit, it comes in a two-part card case. The base houses the unit, and you slide off a sturdy card sleeve, which is typically very snug indeed.

For the iPhone, which sits flat on a base, this works fine. But the AirPort Extreme is a narrow, tall unit, and the box is therefore tall and narrow. You’d think Apple would have made allowances for this in its box design, right? Nope.

On the left you can see the box’s base and on the right the unit itself. On pulling the card sleeve free, my unit unceremoniously went CLUNK on to the desk, fortunately only from a few centimetres. I’m grateful I wasn’t opening this box above our wooden floor, or I’d be down two AirPort Extremes for the week, not just one.

You might argue that it’s only a box, but this design showcases a lack of attention to detail and usability. The box still looks great, but it’s form over function—it works poorly in practice and also when taking into account expectations, namely that your new purchase won’t end up sailing through the air as you attempt to free it from its packaging.