PC World has published an example of how to write for Digg. Let’s break it down.
Title
“Rumored Apple Tablet is a Tran Wreck.” Many believe that an Apple tablet is imminent and the buzz is increasing lately, so nice use of keywording there. Plus, “Train Wreck” is exciting language. “Apple Tablet will Flop” is less exciting. Personally, I hate headlines that Capitalize Every Word.
Linkbait
PC World quickly baits Apple fans with these lines in the 2nd paragraph.
“… this device would be a flop. This concept is such a train wreck from start to finish that I don’t know where to begin.”
Apple’s most fervent fans, the ones who read tech blogs like PC World, are also the most vocal. They’ll comment, tweet, post on their own blogs and so on.
Ridiculous arguments
In the 3rd paragraph, author Michael Scalisi displays his ignorance of Apple’s process:
“The tablet form-factor in general is good only for a few things … There are lots of things that tablets are not good at. Take watching movies, for example. Since a tablet is designed for lying flat, you have to be looking straight down to view the computer. Actually, that makes it suck for most things. I guess Apple could build in some sort of stand, but that detracts away from the sort of sexy minimalism that it is famous for.”
For someone who claims to be familiar with “…[what Apple] is famous for,” Michael isn’t. Apple excels at identifying a method of doing something that’s far superior to existing models. Before the iPod was released the market was full of barely-useable MP3 players. The same is true of the mobile phone market. Apple didn’t invent the digital music player, mobile phone or even the personal computer. They did invent the best way to use each.
Michael is assuming that an Apple-branded tablet will function just as existing tablets do, and he’s completely wrong. The innovation won’t be the device itself but the way the consumer uses it. Finally, Micheal throws in some more exciting language with “sucks.”
Baseless assumptions are your friends
The rest of the article is full of them.
“While I think a multi-touch display is a great idea, using it to host a virtual keyboard takes too much real estate on a petite 10-inch display.”
There’s no evidence to support the claim that this non-existent device has a virtual keyboard, but Micheal writes as if he’s got one siting on his desk.
“While the iPhone OS might seem like an obvious choice due to its small footprint and contribution toward long battery life, it has glaring limitations on a larger device. A huge audience for a tablet is the artist community, and they need full-fledged OS X to run the apps they’re accustomed to. While Apple certainly has reason to want to build on the success of its App Store, those apps are designed to run on a 3.5-inch screen and most won’t translate very well to something larger.”
This part’s a bit slippery. What we know as iPhone OS 3.0 is a variant of OS X. That’s to say, the aspects of OS X that are applicable to a mobile phone plus new bits that make the thing work. Mac OS X is comprised of the aspects of OS X that are applicable to a home computer plus different specialty bits. To think that a tablet would run the iPhone version of OS X is ignorant. Of course, Apple would develop yet another unique iteration based upon the needs of that device.
Again, these two paragraphs are meant to goad people like me into posting rebuttles. When you’ve sat down to write, abandon the urge to write something that will be picked up on Digg, various blogs or Twitter. Write because you have something insightful, funny or witty to share. If you’ve done a good job, it’ll get spread around on its own merit.
I don’t begrudge Michael’s opinion on Apple’s plans to release a tablet, but I dislike the way he’s presented it.
For the record, I do belive a new device is coming.
