HP announces the Spectre One, draws much controversy

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]ewlett-Packard today introduced a new all-in-one PC, the Spectre One. First off, I'd like to define this seemingly foreign word that they used in its title; Spectre, that is. Its origin is French and the English version is actually "specter", which means (1) "a visible disembodied spirit" or (2) "something that haunts or perturbs the mind", according to Merriam-Webster. There is also the Latin word "spectrum" which is related and used to describe frequencies in this day and age. I assume HP has hopes that its competitors will fear what I'd like to call "The Ghost Computer from Hewlett-Packard". This is sensible, but not when you look at the uninspired design.

This new computer from the Palo Alto, California-based corporation brings a lot of things to the table, including a touchscreen 23.6-inch 1080p display with NFC and Beats Audio, among many other things you'd expect from an HP product. Now I've never been an advocate of this particular manufacturer's design or the fact that it manages to sell so many Windows-powered computers. I like Windows, don't get me wrong. The problem is that all major PC vendors install so much rubbish on the computer that it's rendered near-unusable by the time you set it up. Windows 8 is yet another operating system that the company can pollute; this machine will run it, and hopefully the user experience will be better than the expectations seeing as there's a touchscreen onboard. Still, I'm not sure about a vertical touchscreen.

Now, on to the design and accessories included with the Spectre One, which are meriting a lot of attention from Apple fans and designers who have a penchant for originality alike. First off, the design is, as I said before, uninspired. It does not deserve any praise whatsoever, but I cannot in good faith say that it's a "new Apple iMac". Nearly every major blogger thinks that the design is a carbon copy of Apple's fine work with its only all-in-one, yet I do not see such a resemblance. Do understand that I am an avid user of Apple products and enjoy using Macs. I have never supported Windows with as much effort as OS X. I cannot, however, support the opinions of this online group of bloggers who thinks they can just go on with such slander.

Hewlett-Packards' all-in-one is not deserving of a design award. It's not original either. The aluminum Apple-like keyboard, along with what seems to be a Magic Trackpad alternative, are indeed blatant ripoffs of Apple's well-designed accessories. The actual computer, however, is not so much. If you take a few moments to browse Engadget's gallery of the machine, you'll see that the back of the computer looks like Apple's iMac and it is indeed not all that original, but the front is still the plastic old HP. I'm not a big fan of the design and it's no iMac, so I don't know why it deserved such attention as its received from the media. All they're really doing is promoting the product, even if it seems like they're not recommending it. HP changed things at least a little with the USB ports on the base of the computer along with the SD card slot and headphone jack. To the rear are the rest of the inputs, but not like Apple's. It does resemble an iMac, but it doesn't deserve such deliberation. Besides, if a design appeals to some people, maybe it's a good idea to adopt something like it. HP did that, and their version isn't that great, so there's no reason to even compare it to an Apple product.

Is the criticism deserved? Yes, but not pervasively as it has been broadcast.

For reference, Vizio has designs similar to this, yet sleeker; so do many others. They never received as much hatred as HP has today. Everyone's tried to make a product like Apple's without getting too copy cat-like. That's the way the competition works since its the only way they know how to innovate.

I think journalists need to stop such relentless detesting of products like this. They all sound like Apple fanatics, honestly. The press can complain all they want, but in the end HP is going to sell this product and people will either like or dislike it; publications that spend all day going on about how uninspired the design is will not affect the end user as much as they think. It seems like there's a bandwagon these days, one that journalists hop on to if someone of credibility does. It's as if one person has an opinion, and if his is valued by a few others, it spreads like wildfire. There's no fairness in this and even if this man's opinion is valid, writers should stop reading the opinions of others and merely agreeing. Such a thing happens so often that it's almost too obvious, as if they're being paid to loathe a company so. This is disgraceful, overly-biased, and completely un-opinionated (because there's no originality in it) reporting -- hypocritical, even.

This article was not written to say that HP's newest computer is a bumbling failure. I didn't have any intent to endorse the opinions of others either. I wrote this because people need to understand what the media often does and how unoriginal many people's opinions are. You are exposed to this as well and it's hard to be subjective after reading so many contradicting statements. Most of the time it seems like the media doesn't care what happens to the people or corporations they defame. All they care about is having an extremely dogmatic view that attracts new readers to ramp up page views. When one publication does it, all the others have to because it's like they missed the big story if they don't. For shame.

11 September 2012

Yesterday, I wrote an article about drama around the Internet, yet I'd somehow managed to leave out some that was related directly to this event. Apparently some Apple advocates thought differently than those of The Next Web and, while not publishing such ludicrous titles as Matthew Panzarino, decided that it was fair time they criticize a real publication that didn't post biased articles. The Verge, the main recipient of said criticism, was put under much heat for being unbiased in its reporting of the Spectre One. Why? Because John Gruber thought it obligatory to publish his opinion on a blog that receives over four million views per month -- Daring Fireball. Marco Arment, receiver of criticism, then decided to go off onto his personal blog to do the same, furthering the damage and hurting his already-immature behavior from last week.

"Like The Verge, Engadget naturally made no mention of the HP Spectre One’s many obvious similarities to the iMac," Arment said on Monday. Apparently it's no longer customary to do objective reporting -- people might complain. But that wasn't the worst part. Arment had an even more developed idea of why The Verge's report wasn't opinionated.

Big “gadget” blogs depend on maintaining very friendly relationships with the companies whose products they cover so they can continue to get exclusives, interviews, press badges to events, and early access to products. Maintaining these relationships while retaining credibility isn’t always an easy choice for many sites, and many choose poorly.

Joshua Topolsky, editor-in-chief of The Verge responded to this criticism saying that the publication does indeed give opinions like those demonstrated by Apple fans. The Verge publishes many editorials, but it's possible that the team didn't see it necessary to go down the they-copied-Apple road as others had. This in itself shows that the staff has an opinion, as do the many reviews that publication issues. There is a time and place for opinion, like when there's a hands-on or full review of a product, but the initial news coverage does not need to include it. If the reporter feels compelled to give his take on the issue, his editor may allow it, but no one in this situation should have bashed Hewlett-Packard so early. All writers could have composed separate pieces related to the topic.

Clearly that wasn't enough drama for everyone, so MG Siegler came in to point out the obvious in his pithy piece on parislemon. Siegler thought it was necessary to warn people that they "are not allowed to take potshots and question the integrity of Josh Topolsky." I thought the nonsense yesterday was ridiculous, but now I see that it was nothing compared to this. What is it about publications who do real reporting that's so objectionable? Did bloggers think they had to carry the already-drawn-out story further? Is it not obvious that people no longer agree with them? Is it also incorrect to ask someone not to act obliviously bash another's work?

I noticed that no one in this mess apologized. Gruber said nothing and Arment said that he "hates" what has happened, but he doesn't say he's sorry. It doesn't matter if apologies are cliché or not. If you really feel bad about what you did, show that and stop talking about it.