This title is a classic example of what is wrong with tech reporting.
Every new thing is supposed to be a 'killer' of something else. Whether that be "iPod killer", "iPhone killer", "Windows killer", or, $Deity forbid: "linux killer".
This is not to say that things don't change, just that the sensationalist nature of reporting is unhelpful.
I suggest a new benchmark: the techno-journalism killer. Each time some techno-journalist describes something as a killer they lose a point. If they are right within 1 year, they get 10 points. Within 2 years, 6 points. Within 3 years, 3 points, and within 4 years 1 point.
If the journalist accumulates enough negative points (-10 ??), they themselves get 'killed' (ie deprecated, made obsolescent, removed from the news streams and RSS feeds etc).
After all, if they're wrong that much, they don't deserve our attention.
Every new thing is supposed to be a 'killer' of something else. Whether that be "iPod killer", "iPhone killer", "Windows killer", or, $Deity forbid: "linux killer".
This is not to say that things don't change, just that the sensationalist nature of reporting is unhelpful.
I suggest a new benchmark: the techno-journalism killer. Each time some techno-journalist describes something as a killer they lose a point. If they are right within 1 year, they get 10 points. Within 2 years, 6 points. Within 3 years, 3 points, and within 4 years 1 point.
If the journalist accumulates enough negative points (-10 ??), they themselves get 'killed' (ie deprecated, made obsolescent, removed from the news streams and RSS feeds etc).
After all, if they're wrong that much, they don't deserve our attention.