[FSeverino]

New Phone Designs suck... praising Samsung for the Edge and others but not even a mention of Passport. Regardless of if the phone itself is good (which i LOVE!) they are talking on design aspects.

Innovative smartphone design isn?t dead, it?s just taking a really long nap | The Verge

What do you think?

[diegonei]

The Verge is as anti-BB as it gets. Does it bother you? Call them on their poor writing and point out the truth.

I don't bother giving them the ad views though.

[lovedaazn]

I hate the verge. They have the worst and most bias reviews.

Posted via CB10

[trsbbs]

The Passport is old news. What do you expect..

Via my HTC One M9...

[Nick Spagnolo]

Don't give him the clicks

Z10

[umbrau44]

I guess the Verge is ignoring the design awards that BlackBerry has won.

[mad_mdx]

Should remove the link and just quote the article instead of giving them the site visits. Such a crappy article too. 100% unsubstantiated opinion

[Randal Yandal]

The Verge is run by Vox Media and they're very pro american brand. This protectionist site.

Z30 (10.3.1)

[Witmen]

Maybe the Verge doesn't consider the Passport new enough because they already used the full touch version of the design.

[Witmen]

Should remove the link and just quote the article instead of giving them the site visits. Such a crappy article too. 100% unsubstantiated opinion

The OP definitely shouldn't do that. What you suggested would basically be stealing. How would you like to spend your time writing an article (the way this author makes a living) and then have some butthurt fanboy come along and copy and paste it on to another website so that the owners of that other site can profit off of your work?

Why is it cool with you for CrackBerry to profit from the article but not The Verge?

[RyanGermann]

Why is it cool with you for CrackBerry to profit from the article but not The Verge?

It's the article that's not cool... so why should the Verge profit from it? Oh yeah, "copyright"... well, this is fair use, as it's commentary on the article, IMO. Excerpting is fair use, the article is too short to "excerpt" is the argument FOR copying the entire article, but that's dubious... I may be wrong about the "fair use" legality, but again, the article isn't quoted here, so it's academic.

Best just to ignore sites that continually post journalistically-deficient anti-BB articles. It's a fun hobby!

[Witmen]

It's the article that's not cool... so why should the Verge profit from it? Oh yeah, "copyright"... well, this is fair use, as it's commentary on the article, IMO. Excerpting is fair use, the article is too short to "excerpt" is the argument FOR copying the entire article, but that's dubious... I may be wrong about the "fair use" legality, but again, the article isn't quoted here, so it's academic.

Best just to ignore sites that continually post journalistically-deficient anti-BB articles. It's a fun hobby!

The Verge should profit from it because they created and own the content. Pretty simple if you ask me.

I was responding to "quote the article and remove the link". In my opinion, doing that is wrong. I'm sure anyone who creates on-line content for profit would rather people not go around doing that with their content.

Do you think the bloggers here on CrackBerry would like it if members of another phone forum copy and pasted their articles with no links back to their site?

Would that still be fair use or wrong?

[RyanGermann]

The Verge should profit from it because they created and own the content. Pretty simple if you ask me.

I was responding to "quote the article and remove the link". In my opinion, doing that is wrong. I'm sure anyone who creates on-line content for profit would rather people not go around doing that with their content.

Do you think the bloggers here on CrackBerry would like it if members of another phone forum copy and pasted their articles with no links back to their site?

Would that still be fair use or wrong?

First, I agree with you, despite the fact that I believe there are 'grey areas' here. I don't own 2000 audio CDs and literally hundreds of Blu-Ray discs and dozens upon dozens of video games on physical media because I don't respect copyright laws.

The question about some of these articles is iffy: is the value the content of the article itself, or is the value in the article title's ability to "lure" web users to articles often devoid of real "content", using a "HA! Made you look!" business model to get ad views (I believe the term is "click bait"). If the "lure" in the title IS where the site gets the value, then it seems that so long as you don't copy the TITLE of the article (the content being sloppily composed and just some tool's opinion at any rate) has no value. Is depriving the "click-baiters" revenue a possible solution to the "click bait" problem? Something about being a Master is going to come up here, but I... can't... quite... no, it's gone.

Does "click bait" deserve the same respect vis a vis copyright as "legitimate" content written for a higher purpose? I'm gonna let that debate go on without me, because people not respecting copyright is the way the internet works, whether or not I participate or agree: the new business models created by this reality is WHY click bait even exists, because there's so much "free" content no one is willing to pay for anything anymore, and the notion of "paying by viewing ads" is amorphous, and disingenuous luring of web surfers to meritless content written by meritless people drives much of the content creation on the net. I'd LOVE to see that rug pulled out, right near a tall concrete staircase.

This is all a devil's advocate "argument" anyway. I'm not an advocate for copyright infringement, but does it bother me a whole lot when sites that disrespect me and others get infringed? Nope. Not much at all. Provide content worth respecting and you'll get respected. Some people will steal ANYTHING that's not nailed down and rationalize it... I think it's just not (no pun intended) all black and white.

[thurask]

New Phone Designs suck... praising Samsung for the Edge and others but not even a mention of Passport. Regardless of if the phone itself is good (which i LOVE!) they are talking on design aspects.

Innovative smartphone design isn?t dead, it?s just taking a really long nap | The Verge

What do you think?

It's the Verge, what did you expect?

"Move over, Mona Lisa, Jony Ive's s**t in a box is the new design masterpiece"

Posted via CB10

[twiggyrj]

They only just barely mentioned apple in the article and the passport is like marmite, you either love it or hate it and is very niche and something that most of their readers wouldn't own. Why does everything have to be praising or bashing, just take it for what it is.
Sent from my Luminous Lime Green Lumia 930

[lnichols]

Passport was released 8 months ago, and isn't selling well. Out of site, out of mind. This is why competition has release windows for different devices throughout the year. It helps keep mind share up. Of course marketing strategies clearly don't factor into thinking at BlackBerry at all.

Posted via Z30

[RyanGermann]

Passport was released 8 months ago, and isn't selling well. Out of site, out of mind. This is why competition has release windows for different devices throughout the year. It helps keep mind share up. Of course marketing strategies clearly don't factor into thinking at BlackBerry at all.

Marketing is currently the issue: we still encounter 'BlackBerry is still around?' at every turn.

[Oshasat]

As I read it, the article is good for BlackBerry. 'Dissatisfaction with boring slab phones has set in' may as well be the headline. I agree with the author, there's nothing new in that category at all, and the more that feeling is publicly expressed, the better it is for Passport and Classic.


Posted via CB10

[SK122387]

The Verge is run by Vox Media and they're very pro american brand. This protectionist site.

Z30 (10.3.1)

I don't think that has anything to do with it.

American media existed back when BlackBerry was #1, but no one was complaining about American media bias then...