Admittedly, the sources are anonymous, but could one expect otherwise given the material? I also appreciate the piece's directness, which is a refreshing contrast to the mealy-mouthed, there-is-no-truth-only-opposing-opinions cowardice of the MSM. (Of course, if you're going to say outright that someone is lying you had better be sure you are right.)
By the way, was the Techcrunch story on Last.fm definitively discredited? (That's not a troll - I don't follow these things very closely and am sincerely curious.) I was under the impression that it was left in an ambiguous state with both sides insisting they were right.
I stopped being OK with TechCrunch when they went after Blaine Cook personally for Twitter's reliability issues.
I can point out lots of random incidents that have caused me to write off TechCrunch (Last.fm being the most prominent). But those are just symptoms. The disease is replacing the profession of journalism with clowns like Arrington. The pathology that results is "publications" with:
* No sourcing policies
* No retraction policies
* No conflict of interest controls
* No separation between editorial and reporting
You're better off with a Murdoch paper than with TechCrunch. At least the WSJ does great reporting outside the editorial pages. Here you're disputing whether there's a non-knee-jerk reason to dislike TechCrunch, over a story in which Arrington uses anonymous sources to assert that Apple is acting quasi-unlawfully, in part over behavior that Arrington simply doesn't like. You couldn't get this published in a column in a mainstream paper.
I'd forgotten about that. You're right, that was awful.
Edit: I like pop songs. At least Bleach had one.
Edit 2: Did you know that the WSJ is Noam Chomsky's favorite newspaper?
And I don't know if there's that much difference between them and the Times (except Editorials, of course) anymore. Both have very few real "reporters" who do even the basics of journalism, such as checking facts and assertions for correctness and not just "he said, she said"...
From the language of Apple's statement it is fairly obvious they are being weaselly about the meaning of the word "reject" in addition to being dishonest about what the Google voice app actually does. This whole response reads like a carefully crafted PR statement. I love Apple products but they've really managed to dig themselves into a hole here.
That's like saying "I didn't eat the cookie from the cookie jar; I was really hungry and it was delicious."