Amanda Hess, writing for the New York Times:
Apple built an empire on hermetically sealed systems with sleek, minimalist designs. Nowhere was its strategy more evident than in iMessage, the company’s instant messaging system that offered a free, elegant chatting solution exclusive to Apple devices. Until last week, that is, when Apple updated its software, cracked open iMessage and allowed the ephemera of the outside internet to seep in.
And:
These features mimic the aesthetics of the open internet, which is obsessed with nostalgia and is not exactly subtle. But they can’t replicate the feeling of collecting digital miscellany in our travels across the internet, remixing the material and sending it along to friends who might appreciate the find. The programmatic iMessage sucks the spontaneity from the experience. It standardizes the strange.
And:
Mostly, this thing feels like Facebook. A new class of iMessage apps — yes, apps within an app — lets chatters play Words With Friends, send money through Square or make dinner reservations on OpenTable, all right within the chat window. It feels like iMessage is trying to swallow the rest of your phone.
And:
Each tap into the iMessage world sends you further away from your chat bubbles and deeper into Apple’s labyrinth of special features. Follow the path to its inevitable conclusion, and all of a sudden, you’re no longer talking with your friends. You’re shopping.
I struggle to understand the relationship between the New York Times and Apple. I have long been a Times reader, but its Apple coverage often veers far from objectivity. Articles like this feel like the result of an agenda-laden editorial meeting.
Where’s the balance?
I like the NY Times but stopped reading anything they write about Apple. The NY Times really does seem to have an axe to grind with Apple.
you can use iMessage like you always have. You don’t have to use all these news features.
If the NYT can’t get exclusive Apple scoops, then they’ll retaliate with biased journalism, like a petulant child.
I’m still dumbfounded why so many people regard this print as the ‘truth and the light’. Its like people have lost the ability to think for themselves anymore, and this paints a very scary future for me.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just getting old.
I love the Times, but their Apple coverage quite often is off the mark. This is right up there with Manjoo’s iPhone 7 review….
Ever since Pogue left, their coverage has been more negative than positive.
remember, too, that Hess writes more about culture etc than tech. and Apple is always a good click generator.
I agree regarding the NYT. It goes beyond the general obliviousness often seen from the likes of CNet or PC Mag regarding Apple.
That said, maybe she’s on to something accidentally. I wonder if a more Facebook-like Messages (minus FB’s assault on privacy) with several hundred million high value users can be a threat to FB usage as Apple expands it beyond simple messaging.
I dunno. I love the iPhone, but this seems like a pretty fair review of the new Messages/iMessage system which does indeed “recall the crude, rainbow-colored décor of 1990s-era GeoCities sites.” I was pretty shocked that Apple would allow something with such a hideous aesthetic as a default app on their flagship product. Glad others seem to like it, but I’m with the NYT on this one.
We should probably be more skeptical about everything The Times publishes. Somebody actually coined a term for the effect where you read a story on a subject you know well and observe all of the falsehoods and inaccuracies, but then go on to believe what’s in the rest of the newspaper. It’s the Murray Gell-Man Amnesia Effect:
https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/
The NY Times is a great paper, but they do seem to sometimes hold these weird little grudges. Their coverage of the Clintons going all the way back to the nineties is similar. If you only read their front page this election cycle you would think Clinton and Trump are equally flawed candidates.
I mean, it’s good journalism to be challenging towards powerful people and institutions, but the NY Times often prioritizes that imperative over actually being fair and objective.
Sounds to me like Apple doesn’t buy as many ad spreads as, just for instance, Samsung.
Even Pogue got lukewarm on Apple toward the end of this tenure there.
What’s hideous about it?
The Slimes is fit for birdcage liner and little else.
hell, just turn on Reduce Motion. Bamn! all that new stuff is gone!
With age came wisdom 😉
Very well said from the NYTimes. You struggle to understand, because, it’s the reality distortion field you ‘ve grown up into. Try to exit that and think again why Apple lets you “delete” its stock apps, but next time you follow a map link, it asks you to “re-install” its Maps app (which is irrelevant in most of the planet outside some megacities and SF of course). Why Apple does not recognize that many of its (longterm) customers use 3rd party apps and services with their iDevices? Why don’t they try to be a bit more cooperative with these other parties? Well, they think they rule the land (so they can force their own subpar services). Its up to the better of us to prove them good software matters too.
The “Paper of Record” hasn’t been that since the ’60’s, but habit gives it more gravitas than it has deserved for a very very long time.